[MD] Intellectual activity

[Platt Holden]

Ham --

First, thanks much for a yeoman effort to explain "negating 
nothingness." As a result, I think I may be getting a glimmer of what 
you are driving at. 

[Ham]
> First let me set forth in summary the logic which led me to this
> proposition.
> 
> Cusa's theory of coincidence suggests that the first principle is the
> noncontradictory identity of Essence.

[Platt]
As I understand this, nothing is 'other' to Essence. Thus  there is no 
way to define Essence since to "define" is to "set apart" as "other." 

[Ham]
> Two negatives make a positive;
> but while a positive may define "beingness", it lacks the negative
> complement of Essence.  "Negating nothingness" does indeed amount to
> "something".  What it creates is precisely what you experience as
> existence -- a composite of positive and negative, being and
> nothingness, in a differentiated but orderly system.

[Platt]
Essence being both being and nonbeing is indivisible. But, in order to 
experience itself, Essence had to divide itself, splitting it's own 
nature. We are derivatives of Essence who experience an Essence 
divided. So we consider reality to consist of subjects and objects and 
other differentiations, blocking any logical understanding (which 
depends on the division of A and not A) of indivisible Essence without 
invoking a paradox. 

[Ham]
> In order that Essence be made-aware to an other, that other must be
> separated from the Oneness of Essence.  The other is negated by
> Essence to become the subject of an objective reality.  Neither the   
> subject nor the object of that reality is Essence itself.  Rather, > 
each represents  Essence as an other -- Essence divided by > 
nothingness.  But Cusa has  made this a logical proposition: he > 
asserts that no other can be other  to the divine One [Essence].  > 
Essence is, as he put it, the Not-other.

[Platt]
It makes more sense to me to say that Essence "divided itself into 
experiencer and that which is experienced" rather than Essence "negated 
the other."  But I may be missing something (or nothing)  :-) 

[Ham]
> You are a negation of Essence.  Without the content of experience, 
> you are a nothingness-aware-of-nothing -- a "negate" -- that is to
>  say, a  potential subject in search of an object.

[Platt]
To me that's just saying that "without content of experience" I'm dead. 
Given when I'm dead I'm in a state of non-being, I am no longer a 
potential of anything. Only Essence as both being and non-being, alive 
and dead simultaneously, has potential (as illogical as that sounds). 

[Ham]
> As soon as you become aware  of something, you identify with it, and 
> it becomes a "being" in your reality.  But by incorporating this 
> thing into the nothingness that is your self you are placing it into 
> a field of nothingness.  In other  words, you are "negating" it from 
> Essence.  You are in fact a negate  negating.  This is the double > 
negation that has you so confused.

[Platt]
Well, I'm confused for sure. Above you said I was experience and 
awareness, a 'negation of essence.". Now you say I am "'nothingness." 
Am I, like Essence, somethingness and nothingness at the same time? I 
thought my "self" depended on the division, not the coincidence of 
both. 

[Ham} 
> Now here are some random statements which I don't expect you to fully 
> comprehend at first reading.  They're meant only to demonstrate that 
> I'm not the only one "possessed" with this extraordinary concept. 
> But  if you will compare them with some of the things I've said in my
> thesis, I think you'll see their revelance.  (Note: Heidegger calls  
negation "nihilation".)

[Platt]
Thanks for the references. I have no doubt you are in good company with 
your Essence philosophy. Here's one that you may be able to relate to. 
I think it says about the same thing that you say about Essence, 
although I could be wrong. Anyway, here it is. It's from Ken Wilber in 
his book,"Eye to Eye:"
    
"Well, the perennial philosophy - the transcendental essence of the 
great religions - has its core the notion of advaita or advaya -
'noduality,' which means that reality is neither one nor many, neither 
permanent or dynamic, neither separate or unified, neither pluralistic 
or holistic. It is entirely and radically above and prior to any form 
of conceptual elaboration. It is strictly unquantifiable. If it is to 
be discussed at all, then, as Stace so carefully pointed out, it must 
involve paradoxical statements. So, it is true that reality is one, but 
equally true that it is many; it is transcendent but also immanent;
it is prior to this world, but it is not other to this world, and so 
on. Sri Ramana Maharshi had a perfect summary of the paradox of the 
ultimate: 'The world is illusory; Brahman alone is real; Brahman is the 
world." (Eye to Eye, p.156)

[Ham]
> Perhaps, after reviewing these three statements, you may gain some
> confidence that I haven't been talking nonsense, and that there may
> be some metaphysical truth in the concept of primary and secondary
> negation. Anyway, I hope it helps you understand me.

[Platt]
I hope I have a glimmer of understanding. You be the judge.

> Incidentally, you may also be interested in reading the op-ed block
> of my Values Page essay that runs next week. Starting tomorrow
> (Sunday) at www.essentialism.net/balance.htm.  This 4-paragraph
> message addresses the issue of Divine Providence in a simple way that
> I think effectively refutes the notion of certain people here
> concerning a "moral universe"  (Of course, you may disagree ;-)

In reading your essay "Dealing with antagonists" I could only conclude 
that in moral matters you've joined the army of relativists, summarized 
in the following sentence from your essay: "Every human group develops 
values concepts such as justice, fairness, compassion, virtue, freedom 
and rights and draws these concepts into the framework of their 
morality system." Thus I conclude that there's nothing intrinsically 
wrong in the value concepts of radical Islam that result in their 
murdering those they consider infidels. The other principles you 
mentioned for the ethical decision making -- ends-based, rule-based and 
care-based -- are as disputable as relativism. So we end up with a 
morality of "It's right if you can get away with it."  

I think Pirsig offers a better alternative -- morality based on 
evolutionary dominance, beginning with atoms and progressing to a 
higher moral order at each subsequent evolutionary level. Thus jobs for 
loggers trumps the spotted owl, the life of an unborn trumps a woman's 
decision to abort, limits on government seizure of private property 
trumps funding for unspecified "finest" public schools, protecting 
innocents from slaughter trumps noninterference in other countries, a 
better life for the poor trumps nonthreatening environmental concerns, 
taxpayer standards of propriety trump an artist's wish to display 
pornography at taxpayer expense, etc.   

But, I could be wrong.

Best regards,
Platt