[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[David M]

Hi Ham

You said>
> My theory is that absolute potentiality (Essence) becomes actualized
> (manifested as differentiated existence) by a negation or denial of 
> itself.

DM: This is pretty close to what I could accept. But I have a more simple
way to explain the difference required to create the actual. Absolute 
potential
has to limit itself to create something without absolute potential, so yes 
this
is a self-denial. What is given up is simply some potential but no all. When 
I
say 'some', given absolute potential as the starting point, I mean almost 
all of
its potential is withdrawn from some small remaining part that becomes the
beginning of the actual. So this absolute potential is what Pirsig calls DQ.
The actual is a broken off part of absolute potential and becomes actual.
However the link to DQ/absolute potential remains. Potential withdraws
but it remains in touch and the potential continues to pour its 
dynamic/creativity
into the actual, to negate its original withdrawal to begin the actual. In 
this
picture sq is anything that endures in the actual, but eventually, like the 
T-rex
they may pass out of the actual and back into the potential. I would see 
this
limitation of the actual as being precisely what is addressed by the 
anthropic
principle, that there is no explanation for this universe rather than all 
the
many other possible settings for the cosmological constants, the explanation
is that agency is the negation of the possible so that what existence is, is 
an
exploration of the possible, and an exploration can only cover one pathway
at a time, and we all cover one, and each is valid.

Sensibility of the absolute or the actual? that's odd. The sensible just 
reflects
that as individuals we are a part of a whole from which we are not separate
(Scott would like that, and I think it is a tool that outstrips ordinary 
logic).


>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".

DM: Well if you are saying that a human being is not only SQ but is open
to DQ or is also DQ, able to negate the negated potential, then yes.
Or for the straight forward: human beings are creative.

>
>> Also, if you rely on your own intuition,
>> what can you say to someone who's
>> intuition differs?
>
> Welcome to metaphysics.
>
Where we all write our own gospels? Welcome to gnosticism my friend.