[MD] The other side of Value

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark, Ron --

[Mark]:
> I do not see any MoQ references here coming from Ron, which
> I take to signify no alternative theories, yet.  If we want to discuss
> Aristotelian logic, then certainly we are left to the world of language.
> Such categorization lies at the root of Western divergence.
> It is quite true that using Western Philosophical promises we
> become subjects of language.

[Ron]:
> Essentialism all rests on a abstraction. You really can't deny this.

[Mark]:
> No, all does not rest on abstraction, much rests on experience which
> is anything but abstract.  Metaphysical conveyance of ideas performed
> through stories is not abstract.  I fully experience what Essence
> provides.  I call this Quality, but it all amounts to the same thing.
> That is, what lies beneath as the water forms a tree.

[Ham]:
> Finitude is then Essence reduced by Nothingness.

[Ron]:
> Finitude is then limit. How can Essence which we just admitted as
> absolute, be reduced by a second entity? what slight of hand are
> you trying to pull? it conflicts and contradicts entirely the meaning
> of "absolute". c'mon Ham.

[Mark]:
> I think what Ham means, is that Essence can be negated
> by nothingness into the world of appearances which is finite.
> One could see it like a prism which separates wavelengths
> of light from unity to the many. I believe Ron would be correct
> with the opposite opposition, that is that finitude be reduced
> to Essence.  In MoQ we have Quality which can be considered
> Essence, then we have static quality which represents finitude.
> The process of reduction is Dynamic Quality.  In this way,
> dynamic quality is Nothingness.  Since nothingness can be
> considered to be nothing, it can be considered to be excluded
> from Essence which makes it a second entity, but does not
> detract from the inclusivity of Essence.

[Ham]:
> My conclusion: Essence is negational.

[Ron]:
> How about limit, for any experience to have any meaning,
> it's much easier to explain and it works logically but your
> explanation above is, well, inconsistant, illogical and unclear.
> Essence can't be negational if it is absolute. Otherwise you
> render the term "absolute" meaningless. Absolute is absolute
> Ham, not just when it's convieniant to be in certain contexts.

"Limit" is exactly what I'm talking about, Ron.  Nothingness is what limits 
experience to Value, and what differentiates essential value into the 
relative entities experienced.  Moreover, nothingness (by definition) is not 
an entity, so your suggestion that I'm "pulling a sleight of hand" trick by 
inserting "a second entity" into the equation is ill-founded.

Once you accept an Absolute Source as the primary reality, whatever exists 
must logically be a reduction of that source.  The only way Essence can 
bring forth existence is to "absent or exclude itself" from the entity 
created.  In other words, the power of creation lies in negation.  Which is 
to say, Absolute Essence is negational.  And the nothingness of that 
negation is the "limiting" factor of differentiated existence.

As Mark correctly points out, I am NOT treating Essence as "partial": only 
Value is divisible.  Value is an aspect of the Absolute Source which the 
sensible agent differentiates to actualize its "world of appearances". 
Physical reality is thus a synthesis of nothingness and value actualized 
experientially by the value-sensible agent.  All  contradiction, opposition, 
and bipolarity are experienced in the world of appearances, and are not 
attributes or properties of metaphysical reality.

Thanks for yor assistance, Mark.
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


[Mark]
Language is simply a tool for conveyance, as such it cannot create
contradiction, but simply relate it.  I would agree with Ham that
language is not a cause, but an effect.
>
> Ron:
> Right opposites are an intellection drawn from experience, in experience 
> there
> are no opposites
> only distinction. Opposites are a result of explanation. But I know that 
> kills
> your theory so you
> can't accept that.

[Mark]
Well, I would say that there is balance in experiences.  This is more
than relative distinction.  I would say that explanation is a result
of opposites.  Opposites have always existed, such as birth and death.
Both exist on opposite sides of life.  Being between both poles at
the moment, we seek to explain it.  In this way we are consistent with
Hams notion of Nothingness.
>
> Ham:
>
> If you have an alternative theory, why don't you express it in plain words 
> for
> the rest of us?
>
> Ron:
> I believe I just did.

[Mark]
I must have missed it.
>
Thanks allowing me to referee the conversation, boys.

Mark