[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Joseph Maurer]

On Wednesday 30 August 2006 12:50 PM Ham writes to Joe and all

<snip>

Previously, I have explained "actuality" as a negation of Essence in which,
as Nicholas of Cusa theorized, the 'first principle' -- Essence or
Oneness -- is manifested differentially. This manifestation is the
appearance of Essence resulting from the negation of "denial" of
nothingness -- the antithesis of Essence. The potential for awareness is
present in the nothingness [negate], and the ground of reality is an "other"
constituting insensible Essence [essent]. The negate, which is
differentiated as individual subjects, becomes aware of this otherness as
its object(s).

This cosmology is complicated at best, and most folks throw their hands up
when trying to unravel it. If existence can be defined simply as an
actualized Being/Nothingness dichotomy, much as the existentialists posited
it, then what remains (unaltered) is the non-contradictory Whole. In other
words, I think we need two elements to constitute existence (CI), while all
three elements are unified in the essential Source. Does this make sense to
you? Is there any need to introduce Value into this Essential Triad?

I'd be interested in whether you feel this is a logical hypothesis to how
the appearance of multiplicity is derived from the absolute potentiality of
the Source. As to whether Quality (DQ) can be substituted for Essence as
the absolute Source, I leave this to the MoQ specialists.

Hi Ham and all,

I read in Ouspensky:

"A man in beginning the work of self-study with the object of attaining 
control over himself is accustomed to believe in his own decisions. Even the 
fact that he has seen the necessity for changing himself shows him that his 
decisions are correct and strengthen his belief in them. But when he begins 
to work on himself a man must give up his own decisions, 'sacrifice his own 
decisions', because otherwise the will of the man who directs his work will 
not be able to control his actions.

<snip>

He must realize that 'he does not exist;' he must realize that he can lose 
nothing because he has nothing to lose; he must realize his 'nothingness' in 
the full sense of the term.

This 'consciousness of one's nothingness' alone can conquer the fear of 
subordination to the will of another." In Search of the Miraculous by P. D. 
Ouspensky p. 160 paperback edition.

IMO in the above statement if I substitute 'quality' for 'nothingness', it 
makes better sense, and avoids a cult atmosphere.

Joe


>
> Hi Joe (and all) --
>
>
> [Joe said]:
>> In a triad of essence, nothingness and existence,
>> for one element to stand alone, the other two are in
>> contradictory identity. Existence is a multi-dimensional
>> cosmology, while essence and nothingness stand in CI.
>
> [Ham, previously]:
>> Beautiful!  Can you point me to a source that speaks
>> of an "Essential Triad"?
>
> [Joe responds]:
>> The Logic (Language) of Contradictory Identity was first
>> introduced by Scott Roberts on the List. For example:
>>
>> On Monday 13 June 2005 9:30 AM Scott Roberts writes
>> to Bodvar Skutvik
>>
>> Scott:
>> It is because Pirsig avoids the dilemmas of language that his
>> philosophy is inadequate. One must dive into language,
>> equipped with the logic of contradictory identity.
>>
>> I first heard of LofCI from Scott.
>>
>> From Gurdjieff I accepted the law of three: every
>> manifestation is comprised of three forces.
>> [SNIP]
>> Bodvar Skutvik on the list in his analysis of the intellectual level
>> produced SOL The Language (logic) of Subject Object.
>>To me that indicated a formulation of conscious evolution,
>> and cosmic evolution as proposed by Maurice Nicoll in
>>The New Man.
>>
>> The three terms Essence, Nothingness, Existence were
>> proposed by you.
>>
>> I am a gadfly, not an original thinker.
>
> Thanks for taking the trouble to document this concept as it developed on
> the MD.  You may be more of an original thinker than you realize.  I have
> not seen the "three elements" of Reality posited this succinctly, and 
> wonder
> how the MoQers react to it.  Perhaps I didn't give Bodvar enough credit 
> for
> introducing this idea.  We did discuss contrariety and the law of
> contradiction briefly, but it seemed to me he was aiming for his own
> perspective.
>
> Gurdjieff cites a number of axioms on the Reality "radiations" with a very
> mystical slant.  He gets himself into as many as six versions of the
> fundamental triad.
>
> Previously, I have explained "actuality" as a negation of Essence in 
> which,
> as Nicholas of Cusa theorized, the 'first principle' -- Essence or
> Oneness -- is manifested differentially.  This manifestation is the
> appearance of Essence resulting from the negation of "denial" of
> nothingness -- the antithesis of Essence.  The potential for awareness is
> present in the nothingness [negate], and the ground of reality is an 
> "other"
> constituting insensible Essence [essent].  The negate, which is
> differentiated as individual subjects, becomes aware of this otherness as
> its object(s).
>
> This cosmology is complicated at best, and most folks throw their hands up
> when trying to unravel it.  If existence can be defined simply as an
> actualized Being/Nothingness dichotomy, much as the existentialists 
> posited
> it, then what remains (unaltered) is the non-contradictory Whole.  In 
> other
> words, I think we need two elements to constitute existence (CI), while 
> all
> three elements are unified in the essential Source.  Does this make sense 
> to
> you?  Is there any need to introduce Value into this Essential Triad?
>
> I'd be interested in whether you feel this is a logical hypothesis to how
> the appearance of multiplicity is derived from the absolute potentiality 
> of
> the Source.  As to whether Quality (DQ) can be substituted for Essence as
> the absolute Source, I leave this to the MoQ specialists.
>
> Thanks for your brilliant statement of a complicated ontology, Joe, and 
> for
> reminding me where the idea got started.  I think this Reality paradigm 
> will
> be useful for me.  Let me know if you have any additional comments.
>
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>