[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[Ham Priday]

Hey Mark --



> Yup, still with you.  I got distracted by some nonsense on another post,
> but now I'm back and in tune.  Let me just say that I like your ontology
> in terms of the pictures it provides me.  I seem to get stuck at places
> where there is a jump.  Where the actual point of negation occurs is one
> such place.  But, I am asking questions that haven't been successfully
> answered to my satisfaction yet, so perhaps the question is the wrong
> approach.  I do have a tendency to obsess.  Sometimes a good thing
> sometimes not.

OK, you are hung up on the question of exactly where negation occurs.  Let 
me try to explain why I regard Differentiation as the negation of an 
Absolute the Source.

If you accept the idea that pluralistic "existents" (i.e., the perceived 
objects of existence) are the creation of a monolithic source, then it is 
apparent that Difference is the primary operand of existence.  By this I 
mean that since everything in existence is divided or polarized -- including 
the apperception of self and other, before and after, here and there, good 
and bad, life and death, being and nothing, static and dynamic, etc. -- what 
we call existence is a differential aspect or mode of the Creator.  I think 
what you're asking is: What STARTS this differentiating process?   How do we 
get from an absolute unity to a pluralistic universe?

Many solutions have been suggested in this forum, the most popular (based on 
the MoQ) being that DQ gives rise to "patterns of Quality" (the static 
existents), while Quality itself is a unity ever moving to "betterness". 
Some hold out for the theory that there is no primary source, that the 
universe simply emerges from chaos or nothingness.  Others have adopted the 
New Age theory that our world is just one of "multiple universes" that have 
always existed with no need of a Creator.

All of these theories, including mine, are flawed for various reasons.  I 
have posited an absolute source that is both undivided (not-other) and 
unchanging (immutable).  This ontogeny doesn't have the "dynamic" advantage 
of Pirsig's Quality which allows for its division into patterns to account 
for creation.  To resolve the paradox of an immutable source performing acts 
of creation, I make the Source (uncreated Essence) primary and relegate "the 
acts" of creation to Nothingness (the created negate).  Think of negation as 
the cleavage in an infinite ball.

In my ontogeny Essence doesn't have to "create" anything; it only has to 
possess a "negational mode" as its potentiality to actualize Nothingness and 
create Difference.  Expressed as a logical premise: Essence creates Nothing; 
(Nothing is created by Essence.)  Now, I know dmb and others will accuse me 
of simply playing with words in order to make sense out of nonsense.  But 
hold your skepticism for a moment.

Nothingness has all the attributes of Essence.  It also is absolute, 
unchanging, and indivisible.  Essence and Nothingness are the two primary 
metaphysical antonyms, except that the former IS and the latter IS NOT.  The 
only way the Not-other can create Other is by exclusion, denial, or 
negation.  Notice that creation is this context is not an act "exercised" in 
time and space by Essence but, rather, the very mode of its absolute 
potentiality.  In other words, Essence is "negational".

In Eckhart's terms, IS-ness negates Nothingness.  And from that negation 
Difference and its concomitant appearance of Existence is born.

I'll get to your other comments later, Mark.  But does the above explication 
draw a clearer picture of the "where the actual point of negation occurs"? 
Is my ontogeny logical by your standards?  If so, I would say we're making 
progress.

 Copacetically,
 Ham