[MD] The MOQ difference

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark [with references to Marsha] --

> So, to improve my understanding of Nothingness,
> does this have anything to with Emptiness as Marsha
> has been bringing up?

Nothingness is a non-relational term.  It implies emptiness only insofar as 
there are no boundaries to what is "empty".  For instance, that a cup is 
empty of contents does not mean that it contains nothingness.  A perfect 
vacuum is "emptiness" only if the bell jar in the pumping mechanism is 
disregarded.

In other words, metaphysical nothingness isn't to be found in the physical 
world -- not because it doesn't factor in existence, but because we do not 
experience it.

On the other hand, sensible awareness is a physical nothingness.  We can't 
measure, quantify, or localize it.  How, then, is it possible for an 
existent not to exist?   Metaphysically speaking, neither sensibility nor 
value exists.
When I'm careful, I use the term "essent" to identify a derivative of 
Essence that functions in the relational world.  I can do this with 
impunity, as I have posited Essence as not only indivisible but also 
absolute.  Which means that even Nothing is essential in that it represents 
the negation of Essence.  It is this negation which accounts for the 
difference and contrariety of finite existence.

As for Marsha's interpretation of Eastern philosophy, "emptiness" and 
"fullness" have the same exact meaning to a Buddhist: namely, not divided 
into "things", not relative, non-dimensional and absolute.  Meister Eckhart 
described God as "absolute fullness of being."  His meaning is clear: the 
primary source is not encumbered by "thingness" and relations.  Instead, it 
is perfect=eternal=immutable Oneness.  Now I ask you: Is this "emptiness" or 
"fullness"?

Existents can only occur (emerge?) as a negation of the absolute source. 
There is no other logical explanation, for there is nothing -- no 
othernenss, "outside of" Absolute Essence -- from which to create a physical 
universe.  Stars, planets, rocks and trees are "other" to us because of the 
nothingness of the cognizant negate that experiences and defines all finite 
entities.  In short, finitude is an illusional hybrid of being and nothing 
constructed (reducted?) from essential value by the negated self.

This analysis probably includes more detail than your question requires, but 
I offer it as food for additional thought.  If it's any consolation, I have 
never managed to convey this ontogeny successfully.  Either I'm a lousy 
comunicator or the folks here are so accustomed to denouncing anything that 
smacks of mysticism or supernaturalism that they pay me no heed.

Perhaps someone of your biophysical bent will indulge me by giving due 
consideration to this concept and, hopefully, provide the proper logistical 
framework with which to articulate it.

Thanks, Mark.
Ham