[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[platootje at netscape.net]

Ham,


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

As always you've provided me with new insights that need time to 
digest. :-)

Ham said:
"I've been reviewing my thesis and realize that I cannot exactly 
abandon the nothingness concept as it applies to the negate."

After reading your last post I didn't really expect that was the last 
we would hear of 'nothingness'.

Ham said:
"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."

This describes the problem I first had with Essence doing the negating. 
Funny enough you convinced me it wasn't a problem.
This is how I see it; Essence holds all potential. We've more then once 
described our existence as 'actualized potential', but what exactly 
does that mean? Does it mean potential that for us human beings is 
actual? If so, does actual mean 'now'? In other words do we mean with 
actualized potential the ever 'now' focus on a certain part of 
potential that Essence holds? I think it does.
I do also think that time and space are illusionary concepts that do 
not relate to Essence, but rather they are constructs of proprietary 
awareness. So that means that actual does not relate to Essence either, 
but rather that actual is also illusionary.

I would like to use an analogy to explain what I mean, and it may not 
be a very good one:
Pretend that you were Essence. You are One and there is nothing but 
you. Your thoughts are undivided, you are unity. Would there be time 
for you then? No because time measures change and there is no change. 
Would there be space for you? No because space measures distance and 
there is nothing at distance of you. You are all that is.
But for some instance (and this is the hard part because it pre-assumes 
time) this unity is disturbed by a realization (choose the meaning of 
realization you see best fit (1) making reality (2) thinking of the 
possibility).
Now you're still Essence, still unity, still All that is. But this 
realization you just had and which is a part of you is all of 
existence. You are still undivided though, as if the realization never 
happened, and maybe it didn't, maybe it just could have happened. Hard 
to say because we cannot speak of time. And if it did happen was it 
deliberate of was it the potential flaw in Essence (would that be 
possible, would Essence have a potential flaw)?
So does this mean that all of existence is illusionary? Well maybe it 
does.

Ham said:
"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."

Me:
Could you agree to the statement:
Existence is an Essential illusion and nothingness is an existential 
illusion.
?

Ham said:
"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."

It might just do so if you can confirm you're basically saying the same 
thing as I do and agree to the statement I made above. And can you also 
confirm that while the may be an apparent nothingness it's not 
nothingness that is responsible for the negating?

We might still have a problem because you say:
" 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?"

Primarely the background Essence. I still stand by my earlier remark 
that existence is the sum of all that is experienced. I also say that 
you cannot directly experience time, nor space, nor nothingness. 
Therefore they are existential illusions, while they seem to be 
dividers they are not. We are free agents, we choose to organize the 
metaphysical atoms of Essence until we realize it's all just one.

Kind regards,
Reinier.

___________________________________________________
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
http://mail.netscape.com