[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Reinier --

While you're preparing your critique of the FAQs rationale, I have a few
comments on your comments.

I had asked you if the dimensions of both time and space time were not part
of every experience.

You replied:
> 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)

I agree that "change" is the 'trigger of difference' that attracts us to the
phenomenon in the first place.  I've mentioned in my thesis that experience
begins when we sense a change in the objective other -- usually an "event".
We then focus on that event in order to distinguish the objects(s) and its
properties that cause it.  This is how I envision the learning process of
sentient creatures.  However, I don't think you answered my question: are
not BOTH time and space always involved in direct experience (at a conscious
level)?
You said (previously):
> There is no fundamental difference between existential
> time and space.

You now say:
> 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.

You seemed to be insisting that there is no difference between time and
space because we can't experience them.  Certainly you're not suggesting
that we aren't aware of these dimensions or don't know the difference
between them.  Time and space are "fundamental" to me in the sense that they
constitute our mode of being-aware.  In other words, they establish the
intellectual precept that existence is an extension of being whose
properties change over time.

I guess what I'm asking you is: Can we experience the duration of an event
without experiencing its position or movement in space?

You asserted:
> 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".

I responded:
> 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 ...cannot be
> quantified as "a unit" of energy (or matter).  You cannot
> equate subjective awareness with objective beingness.

You insist:
> 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.

But I think you are.  When you cite the "lowest level" (of physical reality)
as the "unit" of thought or awareness, you argue for the reductionist view
that "mind" or awareness is biological (i.e., neuro-physical).  I reject
that view.  The "unit" of awareness is proprietary sensibility, the identity
of a particular self with its own awareness -- in other words, the
pre-experiential "I am".

You say:
> 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.

If Essence "shines through" it is its Value that we sense.  (I still intend
to discuss values with you, once we resolve our differrences on the basic
ontology.)  But I'm still troubled by your reluctance to separate the negate
(awareness) from its essent (beingness).  You say that "we never really left
Essence".  If that were true, then we would still be Essence instead of
infinitesimal negates experiencing only dimensional beingness and incapable
of absolute sensibility.  The adverb "really" doesn't change your thinking
that "we never left Essence".

This is my greatest problem -- not just with you, but with myself as well.
Essentialism is predicated on a cleavage or separation of subjective
(proprietary) awareness from its object.  If there is no "real" division of
these essents, my philosophy falls apart.  I think this concept can be
saved, logically, by the proposition that the actualized negate loses its
"essential identity".  By this I mean that it is no longer One Essence; it
is one self APART FROM Essence.  Yet, I feel that it would defy logic to
assert that the individual self has no essence.  Instead I'm now saying that
the negate's essence is the other that it experiences.
Do you understand my problem?   Could you accept this actualized division of
the self from essential otherness as the primary existential duality?

You conclude:
> 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.

Indeed, we may both be wrong.  But, from a metaphysical standpoint, and
considering the principle that Essence is immutable, can I (we?) posit
self-awareness as a "separated essent" that has lost its essential identity?
If you could see your way to accepting this concept, we could move on to
Value.  On the other hand, if the concept is untenable to you, we may have
reached a stalemate in this discussion.

I see little point in discussing the notion of God = Love = Energy.  Aside
from the fact that it sounds like the kind of "moral reasoning" we're used
to seeing in the MoQ, such euphemistic equations tend to fog up the
fundamental concepts more than they clarify them.  We come away thinking
we've learned something profound, while all we've really done is add another
pretty phrase to our metaphysical jargon.

I'll await your reactions to my FAQs sheet text before making any hasty
judgments.  But I must admit to some disappointment in my inability to
convince you of the importance of the primary differentiation of Essence and
nothingness.

Best regards,
Ham