[MD] Objectivism and the MOQ

[LARAMIE LOEWEN]

[Ham]:
> But is Absolute Beingness even conceivable?   If so,
> how do we divide it up into the finite pieces that constitute
> existence?  Perhaps that would mean Nothing is the Creator.
> Or, perhaps we divide it by our own nothingness?

[Laramie]:
> Interesting.  What is the difference you have in mind between
> "Nothing" and "nothingness", used in the last two sentences?

[H]:
Empirically there is no difference; nothingness = nothing, and the negate or
Self is nothing.  Epistemologically, however, the nothing-self (negate)
becomes something to itself as soon as the organism senses value: it becomes
the "identity" of that value.  At that moment -- probably a late stage in
fetal development -- the Self/Other dichotomy is transformed into the
proprietary awareness of an otherness.  Thereafter, the negate is a
metaphysical entity known only to itself.  (It has no empirical equivalent.)
So, in that sense, PA is a "different nothingness" -- the conscious locus of
a being-aware.  And the object of PA is the appearance of Value as
beingness.

[L]:
Nice response, Ham.  Clear and consistent.  "identity" is the key. 
(Just between us guys, I believe you have profited from your study of ITOE - 
not Platt's cat, the Rand book.)

PA is a unity of Essence and nothing-self, transcending both.  This is parallel to what I call
the Essential Self - incidentally, a name I adopted prior to discovering your thesis. 

There may still be hope for the "Creation Hypothesis".

Cheers,
Laramie