[MD] The first cut.

[118]

Hi Ham,

Well perhaps I am going in circles here.  Is Essence a Source?  If it
is, it must be realized through value.  This denotes a process to me.
If something is a negate, it must have been negated which is also a
process.  If a human birth is the embodiment of a negate, this is also
a process.  If things continually change, that must involve process.
When you speak of an actuator, you are speaking of a process.  Explain
the formal underpinnings of this actuation as it relates to your
ontology.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Hey, Mark [Joe quoted] --

>
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.

Ham, can you have nothing without something?  Using the "Not this Not
that" statement which is what you are doing does not imply
nothingness. Nothingness as you present it cannot logically exist
except as something which is used to define somethingness.  It is a
phantom invented to explain somethingness.  Nothingness as you present
it is simply somthingness.  Yes, Not-Other IS Other which is Not.  We
cannot use a mathematical operator to signify something since it
cannot exist by itself.  If I said I saw a "multiply" go by, what am I
referring to?  As usual, you have lost me.  But I suppose you are used
to that.
>

>
> 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.

Ham, are you talking about Creation, or the act of creation?  In
normal English, the act occurs within time and change.  It does not
help me if you say that this is true "metaphysically".  If it is, then
please explain why the fact that creation exists outside of time or
change is a truism of formal metaphysics.

My advice to you Ham, is to take the time to explain things in more
ways than one.  Besides the whole negation thing, is there another way
you can present this?  If it is indeed a compelling way of seeing
things, there must be many ways to explain it, other than this inside
out approach.  I could say that a black hole sucks everything into
itself and negates it by pumping it out into another universe.  We are
similar in that we act as portals by revealing that which lies beyond
by channeling it though us.  The negation stuff is tricky logic that
is based on some anti-matter principle, if I may interpret it as such.
>
> 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.

Ham, explain how Essence is realized differentially.  What happens,
and why?  Where does the free agent come from, what is the source for
its abilities for realization?  Does this realization occur
temporally, if so why?
>
> I'll be awaiting your outline with great anticipation.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ham

Cheers as always,
Mark
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html