[MD] Intellectual activity

[Ham Priday]

Platt (and Alice, if you're listening) --

> 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.

By George, I think you are!  In fact, your indoctrination to the MoQ has
enabled you to express the differentiation of Essence in a way I hadn't
thought of --

> 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."
>
> 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.

I like your originality (it shows much promise!), but would make a couple of
"refinements".

Rather than say Essence is both being and nonbeing, it is probably more
correct to say that Essence "encompasses" being and nonbeing in its Oneness.
Remember that being/nonbeing is an existential -- not an absolute -- 
dichotomy.  In the absolute sense, Essence is the metaphysical "potentiality
of denial".  In other words, Essence is the absolute concurrence [Cusa:
"coincidence"] of the antonyms "is" and "is not", and since "all that is"
includes "all that is not" in the metaphysical sense, Essence retains the
power to negate nothingness.

Also, since Essence IS Itself, the notion of "experiencing Itself" is
redundant.  That's the difference between "being-aware" and "is-ness".  Man
is aware of himself, but he is not the "being" of his awareness.  His being
is borrowed from the natural world that is the object of his experience.  He
becomes aware by making objective beingness his reality.

The remainder of your comment is very well stated.  Our reality is indeed
the experience of an "Essence divided".  And since Essence cannot be
divided, our reality is a misconception -- a metaphysical "illusion", if you
will.

That reference I gave you from Pascal's "Pensees" comes very close to
defining the essentialist view of man's position in the universe.  Let me
requote it here with a few inserted comments in brackets:

"For in fact what is man in nature?  A Nothing in comparison with [as
opposed to] the
Infinite, an All in comparison with [as opposed to] the Nothing, a mean
[interaction] between nothing and everything.  Since he is infinitely
removed from comprehending [separated from] the extremes, the end of things
and their beginning are hopelessly hidden from [inaccessible to]him in an
impenetrable secret; he is equally incapable of seeing the Nothing from
which he was made, and the Infinite in which he is swallowed."

> 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)  :-)

Both expressions are equally true, except that I don't use the past tense.
>From the existential perspective, Essence "divides itself" into proprietary
awareness and the objects of that awareness.  To do this -- that is, to
"actualize" existence -- Essence negates nothingness as an other.  The
"mystery" behind the incomprehensibility of this paradox has a logical
solution:
If we define Essence as "all that is", it encompasses nothingness; but, if
Essence negates nothingness, it remains absolute Is-ness (to use Eckhart's
inspired term).  Nothingness, then, is always excluded from Essence but, at
the same time, is not other than Essence.  It's an other to you and me, but
not to Essence.  So, you see, everything is essentially connected.  There's
no real "otherness".  There's only an appearance of otherness.  Western
Philosophy -- we ourselves -- can go "beyond otherness".

[Ham, previously]:
> 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).

Your capacity for awareness is the creation of Essence; it has the same
potential as Essence.  So, without the content of experience you are not
"dead" but simply empty beingness.  Someone a couple of years ago, in a
similar context, said to me "you might as well be a brick!"   Exactly.  A
brick is a thing.  It has being.  Is a brick "dead"?  The essence of your
being is temporarily separated from your awareness, but you gradually
reclaim it in the process of experience.  However, although you sense its
value, you don't reclaim it for your "self".  You reclaim it for the
integrity of (i.e., "perfection" of) Essence.  You and I are only
conditional "agents" of the absolute Source.

 [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.

Platt, you come into the world as a blank slate, knowing nothing but a
passing sense of discomfort at being separated from the tranquility of
Oneness.  You will exit the world in the same fashion.  Between these
portals you identify with a particular organism whose sense of otherness is
the proprietary reality of Platt Holden.  You prioritize this reality in
terms of its values to you, specifically.  No other living creature
configures its values precisely as you do.  This "value complement" that
represents your unique interaction with the objective world is your
essential reality.  You know it differentially, as your psycho-somatic
predilection or propensity, and it may change over the course of your
life-experience, but it will never die.  On the contrary, it's what keeps
you connected with the essential Source.  At the end of the day, nothing of
value is lost.  You can trust me on this ;-)

Incidentally, thanks for the Wilbur quote.  It seems I quoted from his "Eye
to Eye" once before, but I'll have to check it out.  I know we still have
differences on the morality issue; but, if it's OK by you, I'd like to hold
those comments in abeyance until I'm confident that you fully understand the
significance of man's autonomy as it relates to individual freedom.

I'm finally beginning to sense that my philosophy may have some impact on
your thinking after all.  That you are restating these concepts in your own
words is a hopeful sign, and it's helpful to me as well.

I also hope we can get Alice involved in this discussion.  Not since Laramie
(who turned out to be Larz and then vanished) have I encountered someone as
well-read and articulate on the issues we discuss.  Though she claims she's
"not much of a philosopher", I suspect she doesn't realize that most of us
here are really "armchair" philosophers searching for new perspectives.
Alice became disenchanted with her Catholic heritage and, also like most of
us, became agnostic (existentialist).  She's acquainted with Eckhart, James,
Watts, Dawkins, Wilson, and Pirsig, and has even critiqued my thesis (to the
extent that she could make sense of it).  Alice is at about the stage you
are in understanding my philosophy, and I think her participation might just
provide the balance we need to formulate some of the ideas we've all been
bouncing around.  (Of course, that will have to be her decision.)

Thanks for allowing me to "persist".  Perhaps I gave up too early in our
past dialogues.  For the present, anyway, I'm encouraged.

Cheers,
Ham