[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[platootje at netscape.net]

Ham,

"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)?"

Close your eyes and try to hold them close exactly 30 seconds. You will 
experience changing thoughts, and with the changing of those thought 
you will try to measure the time. So you experience without space being 
involved.

"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."

We seem to be aware of them in a indirect way. Rationally we can 
distinguish 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."

To me they are constructs of the intellect. I can't say it any more 
clearer I'm afraid.

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

Yes if the event does not include spatial objects (if you experience a 
thought for example). Likewise we can experience the spatiality of an 
object without experience a change of the object in time. Experiences 
are bounded by either or both. But still you haven't made clear what a 
fundamental difference between the two is.

"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"."

I'm not at all arguing for a reductionist view. I'm saying that in fact 
there are no parts, all is a whole, but we experience parts and there 
may be a smallest part that we can experience. Now we experience a self 
and we cannot divide our self, so in that way it is a smallest unit, 
also we experience objects that we can divide in smaller parts. Our 
body is an other to us that can be divided in smaller parts. Our 
awareness is not created by our body. But since I do believe that we 
are still part of Essence, and our bodies are still part of Essence, 
this leads me to the conclusion that there is a smallest experiencable 
unit, and the sum of all those units is the totality of Essence, but of 
course Essentialy there are no units and there is no division.
And although our experience is very much part-directed, we learn that 
what appears to be different parts may in fact be well connected.

"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"."

That's correct and I stand by that opinion.

"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."

Bu that division is real, or as real as can be in existence.

"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 see a problem that I don't see. I could accept your last statement 
depending on where you place the self. In my book it's impossible to be 
apart from or outside Essence.

"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."

If you're saying that both self and other are of Essential nature I can 
accept this.

"I see little point in discussing the notion of God = Love = Energy."

I agree, I should not have mentioned it in the first place, I was just 
trying to paint a context to make my statement on 'all being energy' 
less weird.

"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."

I appreciate your commitment to this discussion very much. I do feel 
that for me the discussion itself is more important, while for you a 
lot depends on the outcome of it.

Kind regards,
Reinier.

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