[MD] Taking Words Seriously

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Joe --


> Hi Ham and all,
>
> Essence is not-being!  Essence is the ultimate reality and
> must be the primary Absolute Source of diversity.
> There must be one attribute within the absolute potentiality
> of Essence that qualifies as a differentiator --Nothingness,
> the antithesis of Is-ness.

Absolutely right.  And thank you for reiterating this truth.  Negation has 
been a bone of contention in my thesis for most of those willing to consider 
it.  So it's reassuring to know that you have a handle on the concept.

> For me Essence divided is still Essence.  To equate Essence
> and Nothingness (not-being) to conceptualize an absolute
> potentiality in Essence is confusing for me.

OK, fair enough.  Let's see if we can clear up the confusion without 
violating our initial premise.

Essence is the uncreated Absolute Source of diversity.  Since it is 
absolute, there is no "other" within or beside it, nor can Essence "add" to 
what it already is.  Therefore, the potentiality from which diversity 
(differentiation) arises must be "reductive" rather than additive in nature. 
That is to say, creation is a negation of Essence whereby Sensibility is 
separated from a complementary 'essent' or insentient otherness called 
being.  This creates a Self/Other dichotomy -- the predecessor of all finite 
differentiation.

Note that I am not equating Essence with its antithetical nothingness, but 
only positing nothingness as the "differentiator" of creation.  The redacted 
(negated) contingents are derivatives of the undivided Source but not 
Absolute Essence itself.  I use the terms 'essent' and 'negate', 
respectively, for Being (otherness) and Sensibility (self).  Although I can 
appreciate your wish to regard differentiated existence as "divided 
Essence", in the strictness of "taking words seriously", it doesn't 
accurately represent the ontogeny.

And while I have the opportunity, let me requote the explanation of my 
previous post.  (Unfortunately, in copying this from my website thesis the 
dashes were converted to hyphens, which made reading difficult.)

[Ham, previously]:
> The fundamental ontology of Essentialism is that Essence -- not being -- 
> is the ultimate reality and the primary, Absolute Source of diversity.
> For diversity (contrariety and difference) to arise from absolute Oneness,
> there must be a "differentiator" within the absolute potentiality of 
> Essence.
> But since essentialists define Essence as perfect "Is-ness" (Eckhart's
> term for the All that IS), there is but one attribute within the absolute
> potentiality of Essence that qualifies as a differentiator -- Nothingness,
> the antithesis of Is-ness.
>
> Essence denies that it is nothingness, and so does not possess it,
> even though nothingness is actualized to create a differentiated universe
> in which value-sensibility is a cognizant agent.  Nothingness is the "not"
> of negation that divides one thing from another in the objective world,
> and one perspective from another in subjective experience.   In other
> words, creation is the negation of an "uncreated" Source that knows
> no otherness.  Everything that exists is "excluded" from this negational
> Source that I call Essence.  And what can't be defined as finite
> 'existents' -- Potentiality, Sensibility, and Value -- are the "essential
> attributes" of Absolute Oneness.

Finally, I should call your attention to another distinction I make in my 
ontology which tends to confuse readers.  Inasmuch as Essence is not an 
"existent" in the strictest sense of the word, I describe two "realities". 
Essence is what I call Ultimate Reality, and Existence is finitude or 
experiential reality.

Does any of this help to resolve your confusion, Joe?  If not, perhaps you 
can suggest a more logical way to articulate the essential ontology.

And thanks for your renewed interest,
Ham