[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Reinier --


As I didn't hear from you today, I assume you're meditating on my last post
;-).

I hope what I have to say now doesn't discourage you.  I've been reviewing
my thesis and realize that I cannot exactly abandon the nothingness concept
as it applies to the negate.  What I mean by "exactly" is this (and kindly
bear with me) ...

My problem is having to violate the principle of the immutability of
Essence.  If proprietary awareness is not nothingness, then it must be
Essence, since there is nothing else for it to be.  This would create an
Essence "fragment" -- an infinitesimal particle of Essence, which is
metaphysically not possible.  I see Essence as all or nothing, and I see the
negate as the nothing that (as you say) is "alienated" from Essence.  I
don't see how it can possess Essence and at the same time be a free and
autonomous agent.

I do have a solution, however; and it directs us back to the primary
negation.  You'll recall I said that nothingness appears only in actualized
existence, not in Essence.  Actualized existence separates all contrariety
(opposition), including Being and Nothing.  I've also asserted that the
negate has no being of its own but negates it from otherness.  But what it
is really negating or "reclaiming" (in becoming aware) is its own Essence,
which is only "experienced" as being.

I submit that "being-aware" defines the negated Essence as well as the
negate.  Pure "proprietary awareness" is hypothetical.  In reality there is
no awareness without its object; therefore, the split in actualization is
only an "appearance".  The fact that awareness is (physically) divided from
its Essence in the actualized mode means that the negate is only a
provisional (conditional?) nothingness; its Essence is there all the time.
In other words, nothingness appears in existence as a void or discontinuity
that differentiates; it is not present in undifferentiated Essence.  If we
remove nothingness we theoretically have Essence.  Like Einsteins' theory of
the conservation of energy in the universe, there is no loss of Essence in
actualization.

Do you follow my reasoning?  From the existential perspective we in effect
have an "alienated" or estranged negate, as well as an apparent nothingness.
Metaphysically, however, there is no estrangement, no nothingness.  This
works for me, but I fear it will not satisfy you.  Again, I see negation as
an insertion of nothingness to divide, while you see no need for the
nothingness.  You will have to explain the dynamics of negation as you see
it.  Specifically, what is it that is negated -- the created "thing", or the
background Essence?

Eagerly awaiting your response,
Ham