[MD] The first cut.

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Mark --

On Sat, 1/28/12 at 5:54 AM, "Mark 118" ununoctiums at gmail.com wrote:

> 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.

It looks like I've overestimated your grasp of Essentialism, which is 
possibly the reason for your hesitation in producing a précis of your 
ontology.

Let me answer each of your questions directly, after which we can discuss 
specific details that may trouble you.

Yes, Essence is THE (only) source.

Realization (through value) is a process.

Negation (of a conscious self) is a process only from the perspective of 
human (space/time) experience.  Metaphysically, the potential nature of 
Essence is negational, so that Creation is not an "act" performed in time 
but the "definitional" mode of becoming aware which we experience as 
evolutionary.

Things that continually change are the appearances that we call existence in 
process.

When I speak of an "actuator", I am using your term to denote the value 
agent whose experience represents his proprietary sensibility.

The epistemology ("formal underpinnings") of actuation explained as a 
process is as follows.  The negated agent is instinctively drawn to 
otherness (essent-value) with the desire to make it his own.  In the act of 
experience, he denies the being of this other, a negation which actualizes 
the appearance of a finite entity (object) while also enabling him to 
acquire its value.  Metaphysically speaking, this is a secondary (double) 
negation that affirms (incrementally or finitely) the being that Essence is 
Absolutely.  (I know this will necessitate much  further elaboration.)

[Ham, previously]:
>> 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. ...

First off, the mystic language of "not this, not that" is Marsha's, not 
mine.

Secondly, _I_ can't have nothing without something or, conversely, something 
without nothing.  But Essence can and does.  For Essence to "have" something 
(i.e., an other) it simply negates nothingness.  This other that it has 
created is what I call a 'negate' -- a sensible agent who lives on borrowed 
finite time and in borrowed finite space by virtue of its Absolute Source.

Nothingness does NOT exist, either logically or virtually. Yet it accounts 
for the differentiation that defines each and every entity in existence. 
Like your mathematical zero, you cannot dismiss the role of nothingness in 
cosmology.

> 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".

The "ACT of creation" may occur in English; Creation as REALITY is the 
potentiality of an Absolute Source or Primary Cause.  Like Joseph, you are 
caught up in cause-and-effect objectivity where everything is evolution.

More later.  The dinner bell has rung.

Good luck, Mark,
Ham