[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Morning, Reinier --

I said:
> Actualization produces what we experience as
> existence -- the actual world."

You said:
> 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.

The "actual" now of experience --what I call 'proprietary awareness' -- is
infinitesimal.  The "present" is momentary and passes instantaneously into
the next moment.  We intellectually string these moments together as
"continuous experience", but this is only memory of previous experience or
something dreamed of or imagined by the mind.  The "eternal now" that you
speak of is NOT directly experienced (at least in the common mode of
being-aware).  I suspect that there may be some confusion as to what we're
each referring to here.

My earlier statement about process and evolution refers to an "intellectual
construct" that depends on memory of past experience and rationalization
(putting past and present together as a precept):
> 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.

Unless you are blessed with the capability of absolute perspection, I think
you would have to agree that actual experience is the momentary present,
which is infinitesimal -- without duration.  [Another reason for my
insistence on defining the negate as a nothingness.]

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

Yep, that's all we need to accomplish here.

You say:
> Negating is the by-product of creating. You cannot
> create something without creating it's negate.

This argument goes back to our initial discussion before your hiatus. I wish
you could provide a complete rationale for this theory, or perhaps a
reference to someone who has explained it.  My thesis is not predicated on
the necessity of opposition.  The term "contrariety" as used by Cusa alludes
only to difference (e.g, between red and blue and green; rough or smooth;
noisy or quiet; sweet or sour or bitter, etc.)  Only a few differences are
direct oppositions, such as being/nothingness, off/on, positive/negative,
black/white, etc.

You continue:
> 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.

Michelangelo saw The David, not the not-David that he chiseled away.
When I think about taking a walk in the woods, I do not think about not
taking the walk, unless it rains.  Then I think about what it would be like
to walk in the rain.

I don't see why the experience of anything -- even imagined -- necessitates
experience of its opposite.  It may -- subconsciously -- but I am not aware
of it.  On what grounds do you support this theory?   Again, I am not
rejecting it, but can see no need for it.  Obviously you do.  I suppose I
shall have to look up the 'Theory of Opposition' and see if the logic has
any relevance to my Creation hypothesis.

> Now I can see how you would say nothingness is the
> divider in spatially 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.

How do you account for forms that we separate by shape, such as square,
round, triangular, rectangular?  None of these would appear to have a
"negational" counterpart.  Do you separate me from you by imagining a "not
me" and a "not you"?  What would a "not-me" look like?   What would a "not
walk in the woods" feel like?  You see my problem?

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

You do very well, Reinier.  This may not be rocket science, but its not
exactly adding 2+2, either.

Can you give me some more on your theory of Negation?

Best regards,
Ham