[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

David --

> You just don't answer the questions, you change
> the subject completely to different concepts,
> can you try again please.

I don't know if you're just being ornery or if I caught you in a grumpy
mood.  I tried to supply you with answers that were well thought out and
quite relevant to your questions.  Perhaps I said too much, since you
believe I changed the subject.

Try again, teacher says.  Okay, here's what you asked me:

> What makes potential and actual different?
> How does the potential become actual?

Since I expected you to know what these terms meant, I didn't bother to
define them.  My dictionary says Potential is "something that can develop or
become actual"; Actual is defined as "existing in act, fact or reality, and
not merely potentially".  It was Nicholas of Cusa who theorized that
potentiality and actuality are co-dependent in existence but coincide in the
non-contradictory Source.  Neither Cusa nor I have departed from these
common meanings in postulating the actualization of existence.

My theory is that absolute potentiality (Essence) becomes actualized
(manifested as differentiated existence) by a negation or denial of itself.
While any explanation of this denial can be no more than a hypothesis, I
tend to regard it as an "abnegation" or annulment of Sensibility on the part
of Essence to effect the primary difference.  I maintain that Essence is
"negational" by nature, so that actualization may be considered its
existential mode or attribute.  (Of course, it is also conceivable that
unity and contrariety are two sides of the same coin, and that actuality is
simply an appearance of the latter, without a primary negation.)

In any case, the result of this differentiated Sensibility is the "splitting
off" from Essence of proprietary awareness as an infinitesimal subject with
Essence as its object.  While this primary division may be viewed as a
duality, from the absolute perspective it is a "denied otherness".  [Cusa
named his 'first principle' or Source the 'Not-other'].  From the
existential (actualized) perspective it appears as being-aware, that is,
individuated awareness experiencing being.  I use the term "negate" for the
not-other subject (self), and "essent" for the denied essence that is its
object.  Since, like Essence, the subject has the potential to negate, its
experience of finite being results from its negation of otherness.  I refer
to this as "secondary negation".

There is much more to this hypothesis than I can outline here, and I am
presently making some modifications to my thesis.  But I think I've answered
the questions you asked.

> Also, if you rely on your own intuition,
> what can you say to someone who's
> intuition differs?

Welcome to metaphysics.

Best regards,
Ham