[MD] The other side of Value

[Ham Priday]

Hi Ron --


On Fri, June 03, 2011 at 9:57 AM, "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

Ham said:
> "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 asked:
> 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.

Number and Difference are the existential equivalents of Essence divided by 
nothingness.  They define finitude as we experience it.  Things and events 
cannot be experienced without the nothingness that divides sensibility from 
its otherness.  Accordingly, I regard existence (the pluralistic world of 
appearances) as derived from the Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy which is 
primary to differentiated experience.

Now, the question you ask is a logical one: Where is the nothingness that 
divides?  This is a paradox for absolutists like myself, and my answer will 
not fit your standard logical syllogism.  We are dealing here with that 
which does NOT exist -- specifically, 'not-Essence' -- and treating it like 
an existent.  Nothingness is a "simulated other" created by the denial 
(negation) of Essence.  This is not an "act" on the part of Essence, but a 
modality of the negational source.  (You might compare it with the trail 
left by a comet or the solar flare radiated by the sun.)   The only way it 
can exist is as a limitation of conscious sensibility.  Like the gap that 
separates two halves of a mountain range, nothingness is effective by its 
absence.  Although the negation of nothingnmess does not produce a dualism, 
its net effect is to provide the appearance of otherness.

And while you may still consider my explanation "word trickery", I've 
devoted a lot of thought to this concept, and to date it is the best 
solution I can come up with.  If you have the analytical skill to express 
this as a logical premise, I'll be eternally grateful.

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

Whether Absolute Essence is "the good" or not is a moral question that is 
subject to man's notion of morality.
I prefer to think of Essence as "perfect", since Value comes in all flavors.

> 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 separation and nothingness.

Ham, previously:
> 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 continuous 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.

In negation the Absolute obviously does not exclude itself in totality, but 
only "finitely" which, when you're dealing with absolutes, means nothing at 
all in terms of magnitude.

Ron, I suspect you understand what I'm saying, but have doubts because it 
isn't expressible as a logical proposition.  Should that be the case, why 
not see if this concept can be made acceptable on logical grounds?  You are 
the most likely person I know to put it into a logical framework.  So, 
please be my guest.

Thanks, Ron,
Ham