[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[platootje at netscape.net]

Ham,

To start with your last question:
"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."

I will try to do that after I made some clarifications to the questions 
about my 'nutshell'.

In reaction to:
> 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.

You ask:
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 spatially, that is, in relation to all of time and 
all
of space.

Me:
Not necessarily. I think that a condition for experience is change. 
Whether that be spatial change (e.g. A change in shape or location of 
something) or in time is irrelevant. One might argue for the fact that 
one is the result of the other. Hey I see a different shape then 
another mental picture of that same object, so this must be a new 
moment. (This of course doesn't take place at such a conscious level)

In reaction to:
> 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.

You state:
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.

Me:
I agree there are no Essential differences.
But time AND space are both indirect experiences. One cannot directly 
experience either of them. They are always the consequence of change. I 
cannot think of a fundamental existential difference between the two 
but if you can than please let me know and I'll gladly change my point 
of view on this subject.

In reaction to:
> 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".

You say:
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

Me:
I'm not really trying to quantify awareness, I'm just thinking about 
the lowest level that can possess awareness of some kind. I 
deliberately use the word 'may' to indicate that this is just 
hypothetical.

In reaction to:
> 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.

You say:
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.

Me:
I agree with all you say about Essence but even though you are right 
about the fact that laws of nature can never describe Essence since it 
is absolute, I do believe that Essence shines through in existence. It 
must since we never really left Essence.
Science is evolving, we know more and more about our surroundings, we 
come to a point that science and mysticism are drawing similar 
conclusions. It's a bit like Plato said, we've been staring at the 
shadows on the wall for so long that we're starting to get a picture of 
reality. We don't have to go as far as a marriage between science and 
metaphysics, but so far it's just flirting, and that's alright isn't 
it?

In reaction to:
> 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).

You say:
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.)

Me:
The core difference between us may be that you believe that awareness 
is outside of Essence looking externally for Essence, while I believe 
that awareness is Essence as everything else is Essence. So the primary 
negation has not been a negation of Essence as a whole, but only a 
negation of the unity of Essence.
But then again, I may be completely wrong about this.

In reaction to:
> 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.

You say:
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.

I know what you mean, but I think we can only compare anything from an 
existential point of view. Since Essentially there are no differences 
the whole concept of value (which is to distinguish something from it's 
surroundings) looses meaning.

In reaction to:
> 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.

You say:
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.

Me:
Well, wether it's the brain or the eyes, my point is, we are using 
matter to detect matter. But matter is nothing more than energy that 
appears as solid particles.  All we are aware of is indeed 'thoughts'.

In reaction to:
> (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.

You say:
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.

Me:
There is no scientific evidence for any theory about thoughts. We have 
a pretty good picture of chemistry in the brain but awareness of 
thoughts is a different thing.
I'm not necessarily saying that thoughts equal energy but I assume that 
the 2 are related to say the least. I'm not arguing for a physical 
monism here, but I am arguing that when we look close enough at 
existence we will finally break through the illusions that hold up 
existence. Quantum physics consists of formalisms, that I find way to 
difficult to get into, and interpretations, that are very difficult as 
well. Essentialism may be both a metaphysical theory as a quantum 
physics interpretation some day. The formalisms however will always 
describe existence and not Essence.

In reaction to:
> 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?

You reply:
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.

Me:
Energy can only be measured in a manifested form. Unmanifested energy 
cannot be measured because by measuring it you influence it. The act of 
measuring determines the manifestation on quantum level. And on a much 
higher level you are talking about potential or kinetic energy which 
can be predicted but not exactly measured. You always measure the 
manifestation, the result.
To go into the discussion about space being physical or not, I must 
first know if you agree that pure energy is dimension-less and location 
less.

In reaction to:
> 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.

You say:
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).

Me:
And this is exactly what I argue that pure energy is.
It's a not so strange concept in mysticism that God equals pure love 
equals pure energy. And since indeed I believe that proprietary 
awareness is included somehow in physical (but what exactly is 
physical) reality, it is a very plausible concept for me. It's backed 
by science (more and more) by logic and by feeling.

You say:
".  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."

Me:
I can live with that, maybe the best we can do is borrow of each others 
theories, but we'll have fun doing so.

Kind regards,
Reinier.

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