[MD] The first cut.

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Mark [Joe quoted] --

> Yes, I have read your thesis.  The way you seemed to use
> the concept of nothingness was as "something which actuates"
> (my quotes).  In this way, your nothingness must be an active
 > participant.  For it not to be, it must come from a place other
> than Essence, and sit passively by.  Nothingness is a noun
> which signifies something, right?.

Not exactly.  Nothingness signifies nothing.  It is the antipode of Essence 
which, you will recall, Eckhart characterized as "IS-ness".  In a semantic 
context, nothingness is the 'Not' of the "Not-other", which was Cusa's 
theorem for God or the First Principle.  The actuator of creation is not 
nothingness but the conscious agent who converts Value into the experience 
of an otherness that corresponds with his/her sensibility.

> As before, I am trying to explore your concept of negation
> in terms of MoQ.  This negation is a process which produces
> awareness.  This process must come from someplace in order
> to negate Essence.  I have no problem with Essence negating
> itself, but we still have to separate the negation from the
> appearance of Self and Other, I believe.  If not, perhaps you
> can give me an analogy.

My advice to you (as it would be to Joe) is to avoid associating "process" 
with Creation, at least until you are describing it from the human 
perspective.  Keep in mind that the Source is immutable, which means that, 
metaphysically, creation is unrelated to time or change.

Analogies don't come easily when we talk about metaphysical reality. 
However, Joe's post to Tuukka on conceptualizing individuality and evolution 
may be useful here.  I found this statement most insightful.

[Joe, on 1/1/12]:
> In trying to conceptualize evolution and individuality
> I prefer to accept levels in existence MOQ rather than
> the proposed levels in essence SOM.  I accept Essence
> as indefinable.  Imho Essence is without boundaries
> in evolution and indefinable.  The individual is definable.

(What I think he means is that since we can define levels in Existence but 
not in Essence, the only metaphysics we can formulate is existential.)

Later, on 1/17/12, he wrote:
> The difficulty with not defining DQ begs the question:
> "What is evolution?"  In philosophical parlance there are
> no terms defining evolution.  To make some sense of
> evolution I define Evolution as levels in existence.
> DQ then becomes the mark for discreet levels in existence.
> Without the metaphysics of DQ/SQ there is no way to
> conceptualize existence even though indefinable
> existence has meaning in evolution.

Thank you for these thoughts, Joe.

Since "individuated" and "definitive" don't quite cut it, there should be a 
word like 'definitional' to designate definable entities.  If there were 
such a word in our lexicon, we could define Existence as definitional 
reality--the "negational" side of the coin--as distinguished from the 
absolute, "positive" side.  (Maybe you can suggest one.)  As it is, we're 
stuck with "differentiated existence" and "undifferentiated reality".

Anyway, the relational space/time world of process and change affords an 
articulated scale of values whereby Essence may be realized differentially 
by a free agent, unbiased by Absolute Truth.  Somehow I find this a noble 
concept.  I hope it helps you to conceptualize the ontology of Essence.

I'll be awaiting your outline with great anticipation.

Sincerely,
Ham