[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Krimel]

[Ham]
The first distinction (i.e., difference) is between absolute Oneness (your 
"something") and absolute nothingness.  Although Oneness (Essence) is 
'prime', numerality or its intellectual realization requires a cognizant 
subject.  The zero refused by the Greeks figures in the logic of mathematics

which is a relational system.  That is, it connotes the absence of a 
numbered quantity.  Primary nothingness establishes difference but relates 
only to absolute Essence.  Difference must be broken down into relational 
existents by value-sensibility in order to actualize existence.

[Krimel]
Still nothing I said suggests the need for an "absolute" of any kind. One
might conceive of nothingness as absolute but somethingness is almost
defined by change. I believe the Greeks rejected zero not as a mathematical
quantity be specifically because of its metaphysical implications.

> [Krimel]
> But in no sense is nothing an "agent." Nor does it make any sense
> to speak of sensibility as metaphysical. Sensibility is property of living
> things. It is a system of feedback. It is a property of relationship not
> relationship itself.

[Ham]
This is awkward, and I may not be choosing the proper terms, but the 
sensibility I refer to is not a biological response mechanism, such as what 
causes an amoeba to shrink from a toxic substance.  Rather, it is "pure" 
value-sensibility which doesn't exist in the differentiated world, yet is 
necessary for proprietary awareness.  That's why I classify sensibility as 
"metaphysical" -- to distinguish it from "existential".  Once individuated 
(embodied) as a conscious organism, primary value-sensibility becomes the 
psycho-emotional 'being-aware'.  Conscious awareness is not an existent or 
"entity"; it is the value agent that creates the appearance of relational 
existence.  In that sense it is the 'negate' otherwise known as the 
cognizant Self of experiential reality.

[Krimel]
I don't think it makes sense to talk about "sensibility" in the way you do.
Sensation is a biological process in which energy is transduced from the
environment into neural impulses. Pure sensibility as you use it make no
more sense to me than the MoQer's insistence that the "pre-intellectual" is
somehow a unity. Nor does sensation require consciousness. We sense lots of
things that remain entirely outside of awareness. I think, as I have said
many times, that you are just making up a lot of terms to address issues
that aren't really issues.

[Ham]
I don't know if this makes any sense to you, but your mathematical premise 
is a useful analogy for the primary metaphysical dichotomy.

[Krimel]
Are correct, your cosmology makes no sense to me at all but you're welcome
anyway.