[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Hi Reinier --


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

You're right.  I find it strange not to associate it with negation.
Normally, when one negates -- a number, for instance -- it is eliminated.
If an idea is negated, we think of it as rejected, nullified.  So, why
should it be any different in metaphysics?

> This describes the problem I first had with Essence
> doing the negating. Funny enough you convinced me
> it wasn't a problem.

How did I do that??  Can you requote my statement?

> 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 don't necessarily equate actualization with full (absolute) potentiality.
As I see it, actualization produces what we experience as existence -- the
actual world.
>From our viewpoint it is a "process" -- evolution in time and space. etc.
>From the absolute perspective it is a constant attribute of the "negational"
Essence.

> I do also think that time and space are illusionary
> concepts that do not relate to Essence, but rather
> are constructs of proprietary awareness. So that
> means that actual does not relate to Essence either,
> but rather that actual is also illusionary.

I can buy that part of your thesis.  Aside from the fact that space/time is
implanted somehow in the "cosmic template" for existence (which must
ultimately allude to Essence),
I think it's quite possible that the human brain constructs these dimensions
in its mode of being-aware.  And I've said before that actualized existence
is "illusionary", as is anything else that is differentiated from Essence.

> 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.

It's an excellent analogy, and one that I often use myself.  I think it
states the Essential perspective very well.

> 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 fits (1) making reality ...

I'll choose "making an other".

> 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 ...
> 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)?

I don't see the creation of existence as a flaw.  It serves a purpose; and
the purpose works (if Essentialism has any validity).  However, I also
believe that existence is something more than God's "dream".  At least, my
life-experience has more significance than that for me.  I look at it this
way: Actualization (i.e., Creation) is a constant "act".  It is primary to
Essence, in the same way that Oneness, Potentiality, Sensibility, and
Absoluteness are primary attributes.  (Another possible primary attribute,
which we haven't discussed, is Intentionality.)

Now this constant act or expression of Essence is responsible for the
appearance of other.  Appearance requires an "other" to contain or realize
it.  There is no other in Essence.  That other is "proprietary awareness"
which arises as the actualized subject.  Essentially, all we need to
establish is the means by which Essence creates the appearance of
proprietary awareness.

Essence is absolute Sensibility.  Now it's my turn to throw you an analogy.

In physical terms, if your foot "falls asleep" due to poor circulation, you
don't feel it; it becomes an "other" to you.  But your foot is still
"alive", still capable of healing itself, still circulating blood and
growing tissue.  You know you possess that foot, that it's still attached to
your leg.  So you "will it back" to yourself (maybe rubbing on it a little),
all the time DENYING ITS OTHERNESS.  And -- presto! -- it soon becomes
sensible to you again. You are whole.

Now suppose you WANTED to lose the sensation in your foot.  You deliberately
cut off its circulation or anesthetize it.  Same result, same effect -- the
appearance of an other.  Only, in this case, the appearance of an otherness
is intentional.  Essence has this "intent"; it "wants" to actualize an
otherness to realize its Value.  It has no other choice but to deny itself,
to make that otherness a microcosmic replica of its own Sensibility.  Hence,
the creation of a provisional, infinitesimal (if not nothing) awareness
which mirrors the Sensibility of Essence as a separate identity.  This
separated identity is not "essential", does not really exist; yet everything
it experiences (imperfectly) represents its absolutely real Source.

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

For the sake of this discussion, Yes.

> 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?

If you can convince me that negation does not involve nothingness, I'll
agree to all of the above.

> 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
> you see it.  Specifically, what is it that is negated -- the
> created "thing", or the background Essence?"
>
> Primarily 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.

I understand and can appreciate the logic of all you've said.  But I still
need a metaphysical blueprint or schema for Negation.  Did you read my
analogy in the Creation hypothesis?

"When Michelangelo was asked how he was able to sculpt his masterpiece 'The
David', he is said to have replied: 'Creating The David was easy-all I had
to do was remove all that was not David from the stone.'  Think of
nothingness as the chisel we use to carve out all that is not finite being
from absolute Essence."

Is that how you see negation occurring ?

Essentially yours,
Ham