[MD] The Quality of Freedom

[Ham Priday]

Evening, Mark --


> OK Ham,
> Maybe it is making a little more sense.

I earnestly hope so!

> Do you have another word or phrase for "negation"?

I toyed with "self-denial", "reduction" and "abnegation" in expositing my 
thesis.  I also quoted Tsion Avital who uses the word "Asymmetry" (as 
opposed to Perfect Symmetry) to express differentiation which he considers 
the product of negation.  I would caution you to limit the use of negation 
in MD discussions, as it's not an MoQ concept and the term means "rejection" 
to some people.  Also, the "logicians" in this group are dubious about its 
validity as a logical principle.

> Also, do you have another way to say "Existence"?
> These terms do not give me much understanding.

How about "appearance", "beingness", "finitude", "actualized world", 
"creation", "differentiation", or "empirical reality"?  (And, of course, RMP 
has provided us with the term 'SOM' as a metaphysical equivalent.)

I should mention one more point by way of clarifiying negation.  Unlike 
Value, Essence is indivisible.  Thus, the individual self cannot be "part 
of" Essence or participate in Essence, which means that it is necessarily 
devoid of Essence.  I consider this a "plus" because it supports my theory 
that the human self (negate) is a "free and autonomous agent" of Value.

Thanks again, Mark.  As you can see, I've lost Platt (to animism) and Joe 
(to objectivism), and no one else seems interested in exploring this 
ontology.

Essentially yours,
Ham


Hi Mark --

> I find it difficult to follow your contention that your perception
> of Reality raises it above the illusionary. What you describe is
> an idea. It is a system by which you understand Reality. I have
> no problem with your position that our awareness creates our
> awareness. I also understand that without such sensibility we
> could not perceive. Where I conflict with you is that such
> perception is only assumed by man. Through the principle of
> negation of essence, all existent things come into being.
> Where there was nothing there is now something.

Yes, I'm articulating my creation hypothesis. It's only a theory, a
conceptual paradigm, by which I understand Reality. What I call "actualized
reality" is the world of appearances, to borrow from Hegel. The source or
"potentiality" for actualized reality is a "negational" Essence about which
we are unable to assign descriptive attributes..

I would make only one minor correction to your analysis. In my view,
existents cannot come into being without nothing, because nothingness
defines being. Therefore, to say that "where there was nothing there is now
something" strikes me as illogical. There is no such state or condition as
pure nothing. It simply is not.

> The interaction of our beings with what we perceive as other
> creates our self concept. This is analogous to a bubble only being
> in existence because of the water. The only thing that makes our
> negation important, is our personal sense of it. I can only see
> through my eyes, not yours. The mechanics or process by which
> this happens is not as important as the personal soul (so to speak).
> A computer negates which didn't exist by creating a picture on the
> screen. However, this is the sum total of it. Our awareness of this
> existence is that mechanical part.
> The values, emotions, desires, opinions are also part of the
> mechanics, that can be explained by simple biology. Our personal
> involvement with this mechanics is the only true negation.
> Now that personal "I" does not exist. In itself it is nothingness.
> Yes, when the body dies, our appreciation of reality through the
> senses disappears, but the underlying "I" does not. This is analogous
> to a bubble bursting at the surface of the water. The identity of the
> air disappears, but the air does not.
>
> The "I" is essence, it does not need to be a negate. Perhaps we are
> saying the same thing, I lose track.

You've grasped my negational ontogeny brilliantly, and I can understand your
concern about a "negational Self". Can value-sensibility equate to
"nothingness", even in the absence of an otherness? Going back to my
statement above, however, you'll see that I don't support a state of
Nothingness. In other words, there is ALWAYS a referent for sensibility.
And it is this referent (otherness) which is created by essential Value
concurrently with the nothingness-self (negate).

You see, my metaphysics posits Existence as a Sensibility/Otherness
dichotomy. This means that whatever "negations" are secondary to this
primary division (difference) bear the imprint of the dichotomy. Thus, by
negating 'being', we also actualize contrariety -- time/space,
beginning/end, self/other, large/small, good/bad, and all the rest. Even in
the negational mode of actualized Existence, Essence is ABSOLUTE.. Never is
there pure NOTHING.

With that in mind, do you still challenge my concept that the autonomous "I"
(individualized value-sensibility) is a negate? If so, how would you define
it?

Thanks, Mark. (I'm always open to suggestions, especially from one who
understands where I'm coming from.)

--Ham