[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[platootje at netscape.net]

Hello Ham,

I see you're once again battling the MoQ-community :-) But this aside.

You say:
"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."

Me:
Logic can be applied to verify a metaphysics for as far as that 
metaphysics involves a reality in which logic is valid. Logic is by 
nature dualistic. From this it follows that logic can be used to verify 
any theory about existence, but it cannot be used to verify any theory 
about Essence. Applying logic to the point were Existence comes into 
being is tricky to say the least.

You say:
"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."

Me:
I've been rethinking the concept of nothingness as opposite of Essence 
and I've come to the following conclusion:
Essence holds indeed all potential. Essence is the ultimate, timeless, 
space less being. It's opposite would be to not be. That's the true 
nothingness. Just as absolute as Essence but, like Essence, impossible 
to envision. That nothingness would not be relative and would not be a 
differentiator. It would just mean 'not-be'.

You ask
"How would you attempt to explain the origin of
differentiated existence or its awareness?  How does individuated
(proprietary) awareness arise from the One?"

Me:
That's a question I cannot answer; the One wanted to play a little game 
called existence or the One had a divine will to create existence or.

All speculation.


You say:
"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."

Me:
I never clamed it to be complete. I'm just starting to figure out 
existence, I have no illusion of figuring out Essence (not this 
lifetime) and as far as the transition from one to the other is 
concerned, I don't think it's possible to create a theory about that 
that can be validated because we don't know how or by what rules that 
must be validated.

You say:
"But if Essence HAS nothingness as it opposite, does this not mean that 
it
includes nothingness, potentially, at least?"

Me:
If Essence includes nothingness (albeit potentially) it's not its 
opposite.
It's either the opposite 'not being' or part of Essence. Since we both 
believe that there is Essence we both reject the notion that there is 
not Essence, so we must conclude that all there is IS Essence, or else 
Essence would not be absolute or infinit.

You say:
"Actualization would then be
the potential to actualize (or "negate") nothingness.  Once nothingness 
is
actualized, differentiated existence is explainable.  What is your 
theory,
Reinier?"

Me:
My theory is limited to existence and is based on the duality created 
by experience. You must have a pretty good picture by now.

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

Me:
What if I say: "It's God's plan, a game he created, and therefore it's 
our plan, we are the game and we're trying to reach the next level of 
it."

You would probably reject the idea of a Game as an Essential truth, so 
really Ham, I don't know how it comes about, I can write a possibility 
but I see no way how to validate this.

Well that's it for now. I'll be patiently waitng for your response.

Kind regards,

Reinier.


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