[MD] The first cut.

[118]

Hi Ham,
Thanks for the condescension.  However, a "process" does not have to exist within time.  I consider an "event" to be a process.  An event can be timeless.  Your negation is an event.

I hope this clears up my questions on this matter.

One cannot point to nothingness in the same way one cannot point to zero.  The are only established relationally.  Therefore your Nothingness cannot be brought in as an actuator or an actuated, or as some form of separation.  This is simple logic.  To bring such a thing implies a breach of contract.  This contract is an intellectual discussion.

Cheers,

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Jan 28, 2012, at 3:31 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 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