[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[platootje at netscape.net]

Hello again Ham,

You said:
"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?"

Me:
Before one can judge the idea, the idea has to be given thought, the 
idea has to be 'born' so to speak. It's then that the negating takes 
place.
Say you wake up one Sunday morning, you just sit quietly, have some 
coffee. Suddenly you think: "Hey, I can go for a walk in the woods 
outside". At that precise moment you also have the possibility to not 
go outside. Potentially of course both options already existed but you 
don't think about not going unless you consider going an idea or an 
option. You look outside at see it rains, so you dismiss the idea. But 
it doesn't become nullified. The idea is still there, and its 
counterfeit as well, until you forget about it at all.

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

You ask:
"How did I do that??  Can you requote my statement?"

Me:
I'll have to look it up, but it's not that important. It's where I 
admitted that Essence was indeed responsible for the primary negating.


Ham:
"I don't necessarily equate actualization with full (absolute) 
potentiality.
As I see it, actualization produces what we experience as existence -- 
the
actual world."

Me:
That would still be the 'now' world. Since actual means most current, 
and most current is now, and now is the only thing we can experience.

You earlier:
>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.

Me:
I agree

Me earlier:
> 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.

You react:
"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."

Me:
So I guess here we agree.

Ham:
"I don't see the creation of existence as a flaw.  It serves a purpose; 
and
the purpose works (if Essentialism has any validity)."

Me:
I don't really see it as a flaw either, I was just toying with the 
idea. It could be a deliberate flaw though, perfection holding the 
potential for imperfection.

Ham:
" 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."

So you just want to answer the question 'How does God work?' ;-)

Ham:
"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."

Me:
I can follow your reasoning here.

Ham:
"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 ?"

Me:
Negating is the by-product of creating. You cannot create something 
without creating it's negate. So it that sense your analogy works. 
Michelangelo creates The David by separating it from "not the David". 
He already saw David in the stone before he started using his chisel 
but he knew that for others to see what he saw he had to remove "not 
The David" from the stone. The chisel is only secondary to that 
process. You need thoughts to create ideas, and you need chisels to 
create sculptures.
Now I can see how you would say nothingness is the divider in spatial 
separated objects (I don't agree but I can understand it). But I don't 
see this concept working with intellectual creation, creation of ideas. 
And I don't think there is a fundamental difference between the two. 
Here is where Pirsig's 4 levels of SQ fit in I guess. So I think the 
negation is implicit and a consequence of creation.

Please understand that I find it extremely difficult to put my thoughts 
on this subject in written word. They always seem to loose strength.

Kind regards,
Reinier.

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