[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Hi there, Reinier --


Based upon your assertion that "You cannot create something without creating
it's negate," and your agreement that there can be no entity without its
opposite, it would seem that you "might" support my hypothesis of a
negational Essence.

But now you say:

> 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.

In other words, logic is valid only for existential conditions, not
metaphysical reality.  That's why I previously chose not to use a 'theory of
opposition' to define Essence.

However, according to Cusa, the potentiality of Oneness or Essence includes
contrariety (i.e., opposition).  At least it includes the power to create
this otherness.  How would you attempt to explain the origin of
differentiated existence or its awareness?  How does individuated
(proprietary) awareness arise from the One?

You say:

> The very act of experiencing creates existence.
> Therefore experiencing is a unessential act.
> Essence cannot be experienced.

Not "directly", but as divided existence.  But the "act of experiencing"
presupposes an actor, a sensible agent.  Where does that agent come from?
How is it actualized from Essence?  Again, your ontology is not complete
without an explanation for what causes the the differentiation.

You say:

> 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.

But if Essence HAS nothingness as it opposite, does this not mean that it
includes nothingness, potentially, at least?  Actualization would then be
the potential to actualize (or "negate") nothingness.  Once nothingness is
actualized, differentiated existence is explainable.  What is your theory,
Reinier?

[snip]

> 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?

Yes, if you can posit a reasonable hypothesis for how the self (ALL
"selves") come about.

> 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?

I see the self (proprietary awareness) as the infinitesimal locus or focal
point of both time and space.  As I've said before, time and space define
the mode of being-aware.  All experience of finite existence is set in this
framework.  We cannot have existence without both of these dimensions; time
and space are the universal parameters of experienced otherness.  As you
say, "existence has not-existence as it's opposite".  So, if you eliminate
existence, you are back to nothingness -- the negate's potential to be
aware.  I justify the negate's (self's) ability to differentiate otherness
by the logic that Essence and the negate have "not-other" in common.  In
that sense, they are both "essential".

I  said:
> 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 [draws] the
> self (negate) to its estranged essence (essent).

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

[snip]

> 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, therefore 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.

It may well be.  But you will have to explain to me how we get to an
other -- whether it is individual experience with the ability to create, an
illusion, a "split personality" of Essence, or a negation of its
absoluteness, sensibility, or identity.

You ask:
> Is a journey to Essence for you something like filling up
> the holes of nothingness with Value?

More or less.  Value is what we sense when the whole of Essence is separated
from us.  Like Essence itself, it is irreducible, "omnipresent", and always
there.  Value ties us inextricably to our essential Source, and it
represents what has been denied to us as a created entity.  Value is our
"existentially realized" essence.

> 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).

I would say, value is what "replaces" the illusion of existence with a sense
of Oneness.

We may not be hopelessly at odds here.  The major challenge before us is to
account for the primary difference.  My 'Values Page' essay next week will
deal with this challenge.  I'm titling it "How does Nothingness Create?"  It
will be running all week, starting Sunday.  I suggest that you give it your
usual astute consideration and let me know how far apart you think we really
are.  As always, I'm willing to make some "concessions", particularly if
they're suggested by you.

Thanks for keeping this topic relevant.  It has been a tremendous source of
insight for me.

Essentially yours,
Ham