[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[platootje at netscape.net]

Hello again Ham,

You said:
"Now I'm going to try to persuade you that you are wrong by your own 
logic."

Me:
I appreciate this effort very much.

I say:
"You cannot create something without creating it's negate"

and:
"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."

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

Me:
Correct.

You say:
"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."

Me:
Applying logic from an existential point of view I'd say this is 
correct.
(Important to note that at this point, BOTH Essence and nothingness are 
metaphysical realities since they can both be theorized, but not 
experienced directly).

You say:
"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)."

Me:
That's a paradoxal remark. The very act of experiencing creates 
existence. Therefore experiencing is a unessential act. Essence cannot 
be experienced.

You say:
"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"."

Me:
Logic and duality are existential; they both do not apply to Essence. 
Existentially all things have opposites.
Duality has unity as it's opposite
Essence has nothingness as it's opposite
Existence has not-existence as it's opposite.
But we're talking about concepts here. Metaphysical realities. To say 
you can experience existence (or duality) while existence (or duality) 
is the result of experience is meaningless.

You say:
"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."

Me:
But nothingness is only a existential, metaphysical opposite for 
Essence. It's applying logic where logic has no value. Logic, like 
duality (on which the logic is based) is an existential phenomenon.

You say:
"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.

Me:
You make perfect sense IF you assume that the self is nothingness and 
is 'an outsider looking inside', which I think you do.
I, on the other hand, assume the self is 'an insider looking around but 
not outside, because there is no outside'.
Does that make any sense to you.

I do have an additional question:
You see nothingness as the spatial differentiator. Do you also 
acknowledge a temporal differentiator; if so is that also nothingness 
and how do you see that work?

You continue:
"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."

Me:
I see how this is valid from the 'external awareness' point of view.

You say:
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.

Me:
I can follow your reasoning however bare in mind that the duality that 
I propose exists in Existence and is a result of experience, of 
creating.
Duality is not something that exists on its own. Whenever you decide 
that something exists, the opposites comes to live, as I've explained 
before. So it's true that you cannot create an A without creating a 
not-A (create or experience). But Essence is not created, there for a 
not-Essence is not created either.
The duality is a temporal-spatial duality. If an A exists 
(=experienced) somewhere or some when a not-A exists. But Essence is 
without time and space. So there is no outside, before or after 
Essence. And that's an Essential truth.

Is a journey to Essence for you something like filling up the holes of 
nothingness with Value?
For me it is letting go of the illusions of existence. That's why we 
will probably have our differences over value as well (if we ever come 
to discuss them).

Kind regards,

Reinier.

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