[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Good morning, Reinier --


Your objections and comments have been duly noted.  They are stated as I
expected, thank you.  I also note that you went to my site and quoted that
later paragraph in which I defined the self as "pure nothingness".  (I
hadn't included it in the passages I quoted to you because I knew you would
reject it.)

Now I'm going to try to persuade you that you are wrong by your own logic.
(For the present, I shall avoid mention of Sensibility and Denial, since
these "humanistic" attributes may be objectionable to you and interfere with
your logical analysis.)

You said:
> You cannot create something without creating it's negate.

You also said:
> If in a universe there's an 'A', but nowhere in that
> universe at no time there's a 'not A' then people
> will not be able to experience A.

I assume this principle holds true of all entities, that there can be no
entity without its opposite.  Correct?

Now we agree that Essence is absolute 'Is-ness', the Oneness of all that is.
By your logic there can be no Essence without its opposite.
Nothingness is the antithesis of Is-ness.
So the opposite of Essence is Nothingness.
This means that Nothingness is a metaphysical reality.

By your logic there is no 'A' without 'not A'.  There is no Essence without
not-Essence.
According to you, "[if] at no time there's a 'not-Essence' , then people
will not be able to experience Essence."  But people do experience Essence
(indirectly, as actualized).

Essence cannot create an other (to Itself) because it is undivided Oneness.
But since Nothingness is both "real" and "undivided" it is by definition
Essence's "other".
Therefore, the potentiality of Essence is the power to actualize its
opposite: Nothingness.
In other words, absolute potentiality is the actualization by Essence of its
Nothingness. And the primary difference is the actualized Nothingness.

What I'm proposing is that Nothingness is the difference which Essence
negates to create (actualize) Otherness.  As the absolute potential of
Essence, actualization must be absolute.  From the actualized viewpoint
Essence is an absolute duality: Other vs. Nothing.  And Being-Aware is an
absolute duality: subject vs. object.  That is, the existential subject is
Nothing, and its existential object is Other.

I propose further that Nothing (the negate) is not only self-awareness but
the differentiator of Being.  It "creates" finite beings (objects) by
negating its own negated other to "affirm" (delineate or objectify) being.

The negate in my theory is not without Essence -- it is still essential.
But it's "essence" is provisionally (in the actualized mode) separated from
its awareness.  Experience can be defined as the existential process by
which the negate reclaims its own negated essence.
Value plays a principle role in this process because it attracts the self
(negate) to its estranged essence (essent).

Because the ultimate source of Value is absolute (Essence), the provisional
(conditional) value realized by each negate in the life-experience is what
binds the individual to his Absolute Source.  When the individuated negate
has realized its full complement of value, all of its negated otherness will
have been affirmed as value.  This negates the primary negated difference
(actuality), plus all the nothingness that has conditionally defined the
self and its experience of otherness.  At this point there is no duality, no
subject/object, no differentiation.  All is now, and in reality always has
been, One.

We can chew over that last paragraph at our leisure.  What I need to hear
now is your reaction to my application of your logic.  Specifically, where
do you see a fallacy in this reworking of my Creation theory, and has it
helped to close the gap in our differences?

Your humble partner in defining the indefinable,
Ham,