[MD] logic of Essentialism

[Ron Kulp]

Ron prev:
> Language is our window to our concepts; if that window
> is dirty or fragmented it does not portray the concept
> accurately, all we deal with here is language, consequently
> our conceptions are formed by it.

Ham:
That's a great analogy, and you'd make an exemploray teacher.  However,
I 
don't agree that "all we have to deal with is language."  Intuition is
not 
limited to language and conceptualization is an abstractive or
synthesizing 
process involving forms, images, feelings, agencies, relations, and
reason. 
I started my metaphysical reasoning by contemplating nothingness for
days at 
a time, until I got a firm grasp of what it meant.  Language had no part
in 
this conceptualizing process until I began to express it in words.

Ron:
I like to think we are learning together,

How was nothingness introduced to you conceptually? did you experience
it?

Ham:
When I asked for your take on the 'Not-other' principle, you gave an 
epistemological analysis.

Cusanus knew that the divine source was indescribable, which is what is
so 
rematkable about his first principle.  The indefinableness of God rules
out 
any definite proposition about the Divine essence.  Any such proposition

will necessarily impose a limitation which is incompatible with 
absoluteness.  "Not-other" avoids attributive description while
affording a 
usable symbolic representation for the ineffable that is both 
non-oppositional and non-restrictive.  In my philosophy, it makes all 
difference 'negational' while maintaining the absolute intrgrity of
Essence.

Ron:
Which is described and supported by the principle of explosion. From
contrariety comes infinity. 

Ham:
What I really wanted was not an analysis or a comparison with some other

theory, but a personal evaluation.  Specifically, does Cusa's logic help
in 
relating Absolute Essence to Differentiated Existence, and is it a 
reasonable basis for my philosophy?  I might also ask, Can we
"deductively 
infer" from it that Essence is negational?

Ron:
I think Cusanus supports your theory, but I think because of the value
awareness barrier it can never be validated. Because it can't be
validated 
it supports your theory. 

Ham:
If you've read Hegel's philosophy, you may be acquainted with his theory

that Appearance is the negation of the negation of Being, whereas
Actuality 
is the negation of the negation of Essence.  I don't know if Hegel was 
familiar with Cusan logic or the Tetralemma, but I've borrowed his idea
of 
the "double-negation" in my creation ontogeny.  I've also quoted from
the 
Israeli art critic Tsion Avitol (Marsha's reference), who in an essay on

Assymetry wrote, in part:

"The wonder of Creation is perhaps the wonder of the creation of
negation. 
Everything else is derived from it.  The first verses of Genesis
describe 
the first distinctions that God made, which are also the creation of the

first complementary pairs: heaven-earth, light-darkness, etc., but no 
distinction is possible without negation, and negation and double
negation 
therefore preceded all distinctions that followed.  For the same reason 
complementarity too, which was generated by negation, preceded the 
complementary pairs that were created.  Actually, the first Asymmetry,
which 
according to the Big Bang theory is the moment of creation, could not be

without negation. ...Not only is epistemology impossible without
negation 
and double negation, but neither is ontology possible without this 
mindprint.  That is to say, there is no Being at all levels without its 
complementary opposite, nonbeing or nothingness.  In both cases, in the 
noetic world and also in the material world, negation creates otherness:
it 
splits unity and simplicity and thus creates diversity and complexity."
             --T. Avital, Mindprints 3: http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/

Okay, now you're into it, liike it or not!  You initiated this thread,
Ron, 
thank you.  The ball is now in your court.

Ron:
I think what is described above all refers to value awareness.
one can not pass it's barrier. I think it is important to
realize the distinction between value sensibility and
thoughts about value sensibility. You are in effect placing
the origin of the universe at the tip of your senses.


I like that idea.