[MD] MOQ and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Mark --

> Ham, I think you are trying to make a subtle point that may have
> more meaning to you than to others.  It may just boil down to
> what these words mean to you.  As I understand it, Reality
> composes everything, even the unreal.  From your ontology I see
> Essence as not everything, since we can negate it.  By my semantic
> calculations, therefore, I would say that Essence is part of Reality.
> But, you may be saying something different altogether.

Sorry I wasn't clear in my message to Tuukka.  (Apparently my ontology 
wasn't clear to you, either.)

Epistemologically there are two kinds of reality: "experiential" and 
"ultimate".  What we (as finite creatures) observe and interpret from 
experience is a time/space reality that consists of a multiplicity of things 
and events that come and go, including the selves who experience them.  This 
is the reality I call "empirical" and consider largely illusionary.

Absolute or 'ultimate' reality (Essence) is what supports this illusion. 
Essence is uncreated, absolute, and undifferentiated, which is why many 
regard it as nothingness or 'mythical'.  For the nihilist, existence sprang 
up from nothingness and is all there is.  But things don't come into 
existence by their own power.  ('Ex nihilo nihil fit.')  Anything that 
exists requires a creator or source from which it is derived.  Unlike 
'existents', this primary source does not experience a world of things as 
'otherness', which is why Cusanus defined Essence as the 'Not-other'.

The concept of an absolute source has historically been fraught with 
controversy, because philosophers have been unable to explain how diversity 
and change can come from an immutable Oneness.  But if we understand the 
"act of creation" as negational, rather than "additive", the paradox is 
resolved.  The apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians "Now we see but a poor 
reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face.  Now I know in 
part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."   The Essentialist 
views creation not as a process in time (evolution), but as a constant 
negation of Essence.  In other words, whereas Essence is "negational" from 
the finite human perspective, Existence is a 'fait accompli' from the 
absolute perspective.

Any act of creation is a negation.  This is how we were created, and it's 
why we negate the value of Essence differentially to actualize being as 
objects of our experience.  But, ultimately, there are no individuated 
'selves', finite objects, or passing events.  There is but One 
All-encompassing Essence.

I don't expect you to buy this, Mark; but possibly it will enable you to see 
more clearly where I'm coming from.

Realistically speaking,
Ham