[MD] Marsha's (s)OL

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Will --


> Your negation is what I would call Intellectualizing.
> If one does not remember or equate the moment in a
> mirrored way, it is possible to be Essence.
>
> The participation in Essence can be described through negation,
> after the fact, although the memory of it will only appear as a
> sensation. It is therefore through the use of music or poetry,
> where no logic can be applied that Essence can be described
> at all accurately. It is important to note that during such a
> description, one is negating that Essence.
>
> We were Essence before we were born, only because we
> cannot remember it and describe it in a communicative way,
> but it is possible to sense being dead while one is alive.
>
>You will know when you are living in the moment or in Essence
> because you will not remember it. There is in fact nothing to
> remember. This happens to us all the time.
>
> One can also force this Being through techniques. We are in fact
> drifting in and out of Essence through quantum leaps, as dictated
> through the quantum nature of time.
>
> Our bodies (our brains included) are like windows into this
> sensory feedback world. Essence is looking through that window.
> Feel what it is like to be the looker.

That's a fascinating introspective analysis, Will, although I find your 
suggestion "to sense being dead" not only morbid but irrelevant to Essence. 
I don't know what you mean by "equating the moment in a mirrored way", but 
"being Essence" is an oxymoron.  Essence is not "being" but absolute 
"IS-ness"  (Eckhart's term).  Individuality is not a property of Essence 
which contains no otherness.  If anything, the individuated self (negate) is 
a lack of Essence, and death (the absence of selfness) does not logically 
equate to Essence.

You also use the preposition "in" with regard to our alleged "participation 
in Essence".  It is metaphysically impossible for a finite entity to 
"participate in" what is by definition absolute.  If Essence contained parts 
or "others" it would be internally divided rather than absolute.

I believe we are linked to Essence by Value but are able to "participate" 
only in existence.  Indeed, this is the cosmic purpose and role of the value 
agent.  (I note that you didn't mention value anywhere in your analysis.) 
The agent must be estranged (negated) from the primary source in order to 
realize its value.  If we in fact were Essence instead of value-sensibility, 
value could not be realized and life would be meaningless.  In my 
epistemology, negation is ordinary experience-of-the-moment, while the 
"intellectualizing" comes later to objectivize (reify?) the sensory 
information.

I'm curious as to what makes you believe we can negate Essence as opposed to 
value-derived otherness.  How can we negate what is immutably absolute?  And 
of what value is an experimental technique to "negate our self back to" 
Essence if we can't recall the experience?  We are indeed "One in Essence", 
but not as individual existents.  There is but one "true" identity, and it 
is pure Essence. What survives existence is the complementary value with 
which each self identifies its "being-in-the-world" (Heidegger's phrase).

Finally, since it's unlikely that your worldview represents Marsha's (s)OL, 
I suggest that we pursue this discussion under a new thread.

Essentially yours,
Ham