[MD] subject / object logic

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Ron --


> ....the only problem I have wrapping my head around is
> the source negated by nothingness. I dunno, there is
> something about it that doesn't sit right, and please do
> not take that in the wrong way.

The way you have put that concept doesn't sit right with me, either.

Essence (the source) is not negated BY nothingness; it negates nothingness.
Negation is one of those terms that requires a special definition in my 
philosophy.
Since we cannot provide a relational definition for the source, we can only 
know it in terms of its manifested "results".  These include the creation of 
an experienced universe and its myriad objects, the sensibility of cognizant 
organisms, and the values which motivate us toward specific actions.

I borrowed the word "Is-ness" from Eckhart, although I understand it may 
have originated with the mystics.  In any case, it signifies the totality of 
what is, was, or can ever be (as viewed from man's perspective).  Logically 
then, for Essence to create, that which is created must represent a 
reduction rather than an addition to what is already "filled to 
overflowing."  Thus, in order to actualize existence, Essence negates (i.e., 
denies) something of itself, something of its "is-ness".

I have pondered long and hard on the question of precisely what is negated. 
Among the possibilities are Value, Selfness, Potentiality, and Beingness. 
But none of these stand the test of metaphysical logic. Value and Beingness 
are only realized extrinsically, that is, from an other perspective (but 
that is man's purpose).  Selfness is the very identity of Essence, and is 
metaphysically undeniable.  Likewise,  negating Potentiality would render 
Essence impotent.

It wasn't until I read Cusanus' theorem of the "not-other" that the idea of 
Difference occurred to me.  Everything that is can also potentially "not" 
be.  Difference is not only what makes a universe relational but "not" is 
what distinguishes existence from the undifferentiated source.  Things are 
differentiated by the "not" that divides them.  And Nothingness is the 
antithesis of Is-ness: it's precisely what Essence is not.  Cusan theory 
states that the 'first principle' (Essence) is the "coincidence of 
"contrariety" (Difference). If Nothingness is within the potentiality of 
Essence (which, after all, is absolute), it is metaphysically negatable 
without diminishing the source.  Although, admittedly, my choice of 
Nothingness as the negate has troubled several others, including a 
philosophy scholar I've had some discussion with, I'm more convinced than 
ever that it makes sense.  I justify it on the logic that Essence possesses 
no Nothingness (not-Essence is Nothing), yet has the potential to negate 
(deny) it, thereby actualizing differentiated existence.

Does my negation concept "sit with you" any better now, Ron?   Or, would you 
prefer that I avoided it altogether?

> I had hoped for a harmonious resolve resulting in an
> expansion in both camps....who knows.  No one can say I
> didn't try.

True indeed.  And it's much appreciated.  But I"m not discouraged.  In fact, 
I have every reason to believe you may eventually join my camp -- maybe even 
slipping a few of Pirsig's ideas in under the tent with you ;-}

Essentially yours,
Ham