[MD] tiny skull... change... nothingness...

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Chin (Ron) --

Wow!  You've thrown a lot of ideas at me, and I'm not sure I follow your
thoughts throughout.  (You were clearer in your previous posts.)

When you say, you "have read the whole thing," do you mean the last post, my
on-line thesis, Kaup's Nothingness Theory, or the synopsis I just sent to
David?

Who is "Ether or Aether" of the 19th Century, and what is meant by "I see a
statement that we can 'know the creator'"?

Are you referring to Essentialism when you say:
> I don’t think it is the same as Nothingness Theory,
> which I think you could keep searching and find
> others who do not offer even the same
> theory as the author you pointed to. I have. [?]

You also talk a lot about Creation, but your conclusions confuse me:
> Per Zen Buddhism, the universe cannot be said to
> have been created, nor have a beginning or an end,
> which does not agree with the theory the universe
> was created at all.

I know very little about Zen or Taoism, but from what you say, Zen is not a
creationist philosophy.  Then you ask:
> Is your Essence an attempt to explain the creation
> of the universe?

Essentialism (my version) holds that Essence is the Source or Creator of
existence, and that "creation" is a constant negation of otherness.  (I do
not regard it as having a "beginning" or an "end" but, rather, as a
continuous process from the finite perspective of man.

> I think Essence is more a Western way of looking
> at things. Not saying this is good or bad, but just
> maybe incomplete, or premature. Essence in more
> modern Buddhism could be translated loosely as
> meaning soul.

Yes, Essentialism is based on my synthesis of concepts by theological
scholars, visionaries, and Christian mystics of the past, as well as some
contemporary cosmologists, which are by and large Western ideas.  I reserve
the term Essence for the One Primary Source.  If man has a "soul", it would
be his value complement rather than Essence.

> When I say Conscious Universe, it is a simple
> conclusion that if we are only a small part of the whole,
> and we are capable of conscious[ness], the universe
> is also capable of conscious.

Since I believe we ourselves create the order and specificity of the
universe ("Man is the measure, etc.) it may be considered conscious.
However, this does not mean that "things" themselves are conscious.
(You might want to read my note to David today, which outlines my Creation
hypothesis.)  For example, I see "things" as what remains of pure Beingness
when we have extracted their value for ourselves.

> I will not carry this further now, as it would not
> have to do with Nothingness, and I think this needs
> to be settled in our minds first.

In order to settle this issue, I suggest that we distinguish "relative
nothingness" which separates objects and events in existence from "absolute
nothingness" which is the antithesis of Absolute Essence.

In my thesis, it is absolute nothingness that is negated from Essence to
produce the self/other dichotomy.  Essentially we are "nothings" (negates)
with a sensibility to Value that makes us aware of Essence as an Other to
us, and it is we who (intellectually) divide this otherness into discrete
objects and events in space/time.

Appreciate your interest, Chin.  And thanks for clarifying your name and
prior association with MD.

Best regards,
Ham