[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Hi Reinier --

> Instead of responding to your thesis (as you ask me)
> I've tried to write down how I see it and let you react
> on that if you please.

Okay, so you want to turn the tables and have me point out the problems I
see in YOUR theory.

> The one thing that is true, that has no prior and
> no other, is Essence.

Absolutely true, and a logical place to start.

> All that differs is not Essence but may be called existence.
> All our realization and experiences are realizations and
> experiences of existence. (Existence is the sum of all
> experiences.)  If something can be experienced it has
> boundaries. Without boundaries one cannot experience.
> Boundaries may be spatial boundaries or temporal
> boundaries. A single experience will always be
> accompanied by one of those boundaries.

A minor point, but if a boundary is what limits (or defines) the thing,
isn't every thing experienced bounded by both time and space?  It seems to
me that what is experienced is finite, and that we define (delimit) a finite
thing temporally and spacially, that is, in relation to all of time and all
of space.

> They are created by the 'self' to limit the experience,
> so to be able to perceive it. There is no fundamental
> difference between existential time and space.

Time and space are fundamentally different from the existential perspective.
I would say that "there is no ESSENTIAL difference" between time and space.
Actually, all difference is existential; so the principle we are both
holding to is that there is no essential difference.

> In existence all is still one. All boundaries are illusions.
> There is no such thing as a smallest particle or
> building-block. The one smallest unit that may exist is
> of the energy-kind.  Thoughts are equal to energy so
> the one smallest unit may be a single thought.  That
> thought may be the most elementary version of
> "I think therefore I am".

It looks as if you're trying to "quantify" awareness here.  The statement "I
think" is an expression of proprietary awareness.  It is not a "unit" of
thought; it is the subjective "mode" of awareness which cannot be quantified
as "a unit" of energy (or matter).  You cannot equate subjective awareness
with objective beingness.  Subjectivity and objectivity are divided in
existence; they are two different modalities of Essence

> There is Essential truth is some of the laws of nature.
> E=MC2 hold an Essential truth since it states that
> everything is energy and there's no fundamental
> difference between the different things we experience.
> The unified field theory from quantum physics shows
> the Essential aspect of the universe. The wave-particle
> duality from quantum physics is illustrative for
> existence as a whole.

The physical laws of Newton and Einstein deal with a relational universe
(existence).  I don't think they infer anything about Essence which is
non-relational and absolute.  Even the 'unified field theory' involves
(physical) energy, forces, and particles operating in space/time.  Such
concepts have nothing to do with the nature or actualization of Essence.
Essence does not "recognize" physical dimensions, energy, forces, or units.
I don't think we can marry intellectual rationalizations (i.e.,
mathematically-formulated laws) about the physical universe to metaphysical
concepts about Essence.

> Value holds no moral judgment. A value is nothing more
> or nothing less then it is in maths. Something is either null
> (or unknown) or it has a value (or it is known).

A "null" is that which is "unknown" and is therefore not experienced.  What
is not known to exist is negated from experience; it doesn't exist; it is
nothingness.  (I would put proprietary awareness in the "null" category.)

> Essence may be considered as the highest value
> and nothing but the highest value, but that's only
> comparative to existential values. From an Essential
> point of view Essence is value-free.

I don't think we can make that assertion.  That is, we can't compare
essential value with existential values.  Nor can we say that "Essence is
value-free".  Essence may not be sensible of conditional (relational)
values, but as the "highest value", or Absolute Value, to say that Essence
is "value-free" seems ingenuous.

> We all see matter in a very similar way.
> When we see matter we see an energy wave collapsing,
> forming particles, forming atoms, forming molecules
> forming matter. The only thing that we add by seeing is
> valuing. We value the matter as a body, the molecules
> as some carbon-hydrogen combination (not sure on this,
> I'm not a chemist), the atoms as Hydrogen or Carbon
> the particles as protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, etc.
> This is because when we see, we use that very same
> chain as our tool, namely our eyes. To see existence in a
> completely different way one has to use completely
> different tools. So it's the tool that shapes existence.

The actual tool is our brain.  We don't really "see" quanta particles; we
theorize them by observing the affect of their behavior on measurable
phenomena -- chemical valences, electrical charges, physical changes,
etc. -- all of which are rationalized as a coherent relational system.  In
other worlds, it is man's intellect that tries to "make sense" of all
knowledge as part of a unified system.

> (It's a bit more complicated since what we really see is
> the reflection of something, not the object itself.)
> In the end it results in a mental picture, a thought.
> So energy at quantum level results in energy as thought.
> All is still energy and all is still one.

I cannot accept your definition for thought as "energy at quantum levels",
nor have I seen any scientific evidence to support such a concept.  It would
appear that you are trying to
reduce the duality of awareness/beingness to a physical monism.  Physicalism
cannot be the ontological basis for an essentialistic philosophy.  Subject
and object are as fundamental to the metaphysics of Essence as Einstein's
relativity is fundamental to existence.  It is the primary division of
actualized reality.

> This forms another confirmation that space is an
> illusion because when matter equals energy and energy
> has no physical measurements, nor a location how can
> matter possess these things?

But energy can be measured, Reinier; it is quantifiable in units of dynes,
ergs, volts, amperes, etc.  Such measurements are "physical" in the sense
that they relate to the mass, charge, position or velocity of physical
particles.  Space is also "physical" in the sense that it defines the field
which existential reality occupies or is bounded by.

> Since time is an illusion also this means that everything
> that ever was, still is. It's just perceived differently.
> The sum of quanta that once made up the first second
> after the big bang is still the sum of quanta today. The
> evolution that took place was an evolution of energy.
> But energy is still energy, and all is still one as it was
> back then. This also means that we were never really
> separated from Essence and that indeed when we give
> up all our illusions we will see that we are,
> and we were nothing else but Essence.

This is only true if you include proprietary awareness in physical reality.
(I must say, you have done an admirable job of arguing for that view.)
However, as you know, I can't accept the view that awareness is just another
form of "energy" or a "physical unit", as plausible as this may seem to you.
I agree that the "contents" of awareness are images or  "constructs"
rationalized (intellectualized) from sensory experience; but the essence of
awareness is not physical (i.e., not quantifiable or localizable in
existence).  In short, awareness is not an existent.  It is not part of the
"other" that we recognize as existential reality; in fact, it remains the
"not" of the not-other that we have defined as Essence.

So, in conclusion, you have not succeeded in persuading me that
subject/object duality is a myth and we are all part of physical reality.
The locus of all experience is the self -- the proprietary awareness that is
the single exception to all otherness.  WE are the "not-other" subject in an
objective otherness.  The nothingness that you allude to is filled with our
essence; it is experienced by us because it IS us; but it is an existential
void -- the differentiating nothingness that is responsible for experience.

You have made several valid points, and I appreciate your thoroughness in
presenting this argument.

Now, would you kindly critique the rationale in my last post to you?  This
will give me a better picture of where you see our disagreement(s).  Please
include some reference to Value (or Quality) in your comments.

Thanks, again, for a very informative "nutshell", Reinier.

Best regards,
Ham