[MD] The other side of Value

[X Acto]

Hello Ham,

Ron:
> Some questions you need to address in your ontology:
> 
> 1. If what is by nature absolute and undifferentiated, how does "nothingness"
> appear out of it?
> 
> 2. Since nothingness can not logically exist within what is absolute and
> undifferentiated how may it be negated?
> 
> 3. Any negation of nothingness is going to logically result in nothingness.
> something can not logically come from nothing.

Ham:
I don't claim an ability to "describe" the ineffable, but simply to explain its 
"dynamics" in a context that logicians like you can accept.  It's obvious to me 
that although we can't experience "nothingness" in our world of appearances, it 
nevertheless accounts for the differentiation and contrariety of our 
experience.  Like the proverbial "zero" which mathematically represents 
"nothing", it doesn't exist; yet existence is not experienceable without it.  
One could say that nothingness is conspicuous by its absence.

Ron:
That is because zero, like "nothingness" is a pure abstraction. It holds special 
significance to you
because your entire ontology rests apon it. To be honost, this part of your 
explanation should
be better accounted for it is the anchor of your Essentialism. Mathematics in 
the art of measure
was utilized for centuries before the abstraction of zero was invented. 

This philosophical discussion is an old one, a good read of Aristotles 
Metaphysics really
explains some good reasons as to why "nothingness" and zero are riddled with 
inconsistancies
and problems as far as a primary explanation of experience.

Ham:
Likewise, I could say that the Absolute doesn't possess nothingness BECAUSE 
Essence negates it.  This would, of course, make Essence "negational" in a 
logical sense.  As I consider Difference to be the experiential ground of 
physical reality, and negation its 'actuator', I have no problem with the idea 
that the world of appearances is the "negative mode" of Essence.  After all, 
moral judgments are based on the relation between good and evil, and experience 
is based on the contrariety of light and dark, large and small, attraction and 
repulsion, birth and death, self and other, and a whole host of opposites.

Ron:
Do realize that dualism and opposites result from the act of explanation and the 
use of language,
to take them as actual constituants of reality is a reification of those 
relational concepts
of meaning. This is where our biggest disagreement lies making the discussions 
arising
from your assertions difficult to persue.

Ham:
Something has to account for the antithetical equivalent of Absolute Essence.  
What else but nothingness represents that antipodal state?  Were Essence to 
disappear, what else would take its place?  Moreover, we know that man's sensory 
apperception is limited.  To a blind man, vision is nothingness.  It seems to me 
that being limited to five senses deprives man of other sensibilities that are 
regarded as nothing at all.  To complete the ontology of Essence, there needs to 
be a free agent that can experience reality as an otherness to itself.  Since 
negation is the power of the Absolute to make such a perspective possible, I 
submit that we are created by a negational Source.

I'll leave the logic of this ontogeny to you, Ron, unless you can provide an 
alternative.

Ron:
Well Ham whatever works for you, but dont be surprised if the more discerning 
philosopher
doesent swallow your reasons, you'll have better luck with those who dont ask 
many 

questions.

cheers