[MD] The other side of Value

[X Acto]

>
> [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.

Ham:
> "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.

Ron:
Again if Essense is absolute, where can nothingness reside anywhere?

Essence must necessarily be a dualism per the explanation you use to 
account for value.

This is the slight of hand, you cast Essentialism as a monism then insist
it's a dualism without much explanation other than you think it is, so it
must be so.

You like to bend the meaning of words to fit your point of view.

>[Ham]
> Once you accept an Absolute Source as the primary reality, whatever exists
> must logically be a reduction of that source. 

Ron:
That absolute source being "the good "as primary reality, whatever exists indeed 
is
a reduction, perceptualy, of "the good". Perception is the limit and to limit is 
to carve
meaning from experience. To make that which is uninteligible, inteligible is 
clearly
the greatest good. It accounts for beauty in experience and why it is better to 
be wise
than not. 

The consequences of negation are negative. Good then, is a struggle against 
evil. Evil
is justified as part of the eternal process of being. Nothingness haunts the one 
subscribing
to dualism, isolated and seperated from the source and life, it is a struggle to 
reconcile with
seperation and nothingness.


Ham:

 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.
>

Ron:
Then you clearly do not know the meaning of the word "absolute".
How the heck do you expect to sell the idea of an absolute source that may
"exclude itself". That which is absolute is pure and continuose and 
unconditional.
Essence is clearly not absolute if it may exclude itself. 
Try as you might, you are going to have a hard time explaining this away.



???????????????????????????/