[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Hi Reinier --


I don't regard this effort to divine the logic of Essence as "battling the
MoQ community".  Actually, if we could explain the dynamics of Creation, it
would apply to a primary source called Quality as well as Essence.

> 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.

True.  In that sense all logic is "intellectual" in that it is man's
rationalization about what he experiences.   Since all experience has to do
with relational phenomena, logic is predicated on how one thing relates to
another.  But logic also involves ideas or precepts: how a given premise
relates to another premise inductively (using known facts to build toward a
conclusion) or deductively (logical assumptions based on laws of
contradiction).  I think Cusan logic and your theory of opposites are of the
latter type.  They deal with an unknown by reasoning to a conclusion based
on fundamental logical precepts.  Such conclusions may be incapable of
formal "proof", but they are consistent with reason which is the only
criterion that will satisfy man's quest for answers about the
inexperiencable.

I said:
> According to Cusa, the potentiality of Oneness or
> Essence includes contrariety (i.e., opposition).
> At least it includes the power to create (this)
> otherness."

Cusa's 'first principle' is based on the precept that "actuality exists",
which, to me, is the logical equivalent of "existence IS".  But, as a
"subset" of this existence, there is also nothingness.  That means "is" and
"is not" are both attributes of experience; and even though we cannot
experience nothingness directly, there is no experience without it.  So,
when we talk about Creation, it must include the actualization of
nothingness together with "thingness".  Isn't it reasonable to conclude that
nothingness is derived from the same source as substance, matter, or
beingness?  In fact, these are the two "extremes" of existence as we know
them.

When we talk about Essence as the Absolute, we have to make deductions
involving only the extremes.  Beingness (as you and I define it) and
nothingness (as we know it) are both finite.  Therefore the Essence we have
defined as absolute Potentiality must equate to the "coincidence" (i.e.,
absolute convergence in Oneness) of these contradictions.  Otherwise, we
could not have the appearance of being and nothing in existence.

> 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'.

Whether it is the differentiator or not (although I think it is),
nothingness has to become actualized along with being in order to create
existence.  When it appears (is experienced) in existence, nothingness is
relative.  The nothingness of a pothole [not-pavement] is not the same as
the nothingness of an empty cup [not-contents].  Doesn't this make them
relative?  Everything in existence is relative, including the individuality
of "selfness".  The nothingness that is my existential self is not the same
nothingness that is your self, so you and I are relative (i.e., different
negates).

I asked:
> How would you attempt to explain the origin of
> differentiated existence or its awareness?  How does
> individuated (proprietary) awareness arise from the One?

You replied:
> 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.

Okay.  Alan Watts (while experimenting with LSD) wrote a fascinating little
book called "The Joyous Cosmology" based on the theme of existence as a
"dance of God".  That kind of speculation would seem to make light of reason
and purpose, dismissing the goal of philosophy.  But for that one must be
sober enough to apply some analysis.

I attempted to elicit such analysis from you:
> "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 differentiation."

Your response was a disappointment:
> I never clamed it to be complete. I'm just starting to
> figure out existence, I have no illusion of figuring out
> Essence (not [in] 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.
[snip]
> 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 infinite.

All that there is IS.  But (I still insist) some of what there "is" in
existence is interrupted; that is, it contains "gaps" or spaces that we call
nothingness.  Without those spaces we would not have a relational universe.
So, perhaps our definition of Essence as total "is-ness" is incorrect, just
as "total beingness" would be incorrect.  This is not to say that Essence
has holes in it; rather, it suggests that the holes are one extreme of
Essence -- the other side of the coin that is actualized as existence but is
One in Essence.

> 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.

I wouldn't necessarily reject the Game theme, I just believe it's more than
a game.  Anyway,
read my Values Page essay at www.essentialism.net/balance.htm and let me
know if you think it's a plausible explanation.

Still essentially yours,
Ham