[MD] The first cut. (Remailed)

[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".
> If it is, then please explain why the fact that creation exists
> outside of time or change is a truism of formal metaphysics.

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.

Mark, Creation is the coming-into-existence of Essential Value as actuated 
by the negate.  Everything that ever was or will be in existence, including 
the negate's sensibility, is a fait accompli as far as ultimate Reality is 
concerned, so the progression of events that we experience is only a series 
of passing frames in an endless reel of film.  You must understand that our 
borrowed sensibility is but a microcosm of Absolute Sensibility, and the 
finite values of which we are sensible are disjointed from Absolute Value by 
our own nothingness.  This is why we sense otherness as a diversity of 
discrete objects and events rather than as the unified Whole of Essence. 
"Today we see through a glass darkly," as the apostle wrote; "but then we 
shall see God face to face."

> 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.

I sense your frustration, Mark, but as I said before, Ultimate Reality is a 
difficult, if not impossible, concept to analogize.  I am trying my best to 
explain it in more familiar empirical terms; but the paradox is that 
Absolute Essence is anything but empirical!.  You can be helpful by coming 
up with your own analogies, once you have a handle on the fundamental 
concept.  Meanwhile, I'll continue to address your questions as adequately 
as I can.

> 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?

Difference is the name of the existential game.  Every new experience 
signifies difference to the observer.  Change is difference; so are 
location, birth, growth, motion, learning, defining, relating, emoting, 
behaving, death and destruction.  Sartre devoted a whole chapter to "the 
origin of negation" in his 'Being and Nothingness'.  He says that "Being 
presupposes Essence", that "Nothingness must be an ontological 
characteristic of Being itself", that "Man presents himself ...as a being 
who causes Nothingness to arise in the world."  He also says (in some 
paragraph I failed to underscore) that Man "penetrates the Other" with his 
own Nothingness in order to realize being-in-itself, but I"ll have to search 
the 600-page book for the exact quote.

The free agent comes from sensibility to Value that has been individualized 
(organically) by the differential principle of negation.  Its realization is 
a function of reason and desire as processed by the central nervous system. 
This occurs temporally for no other reason than that conscious awareness is 
temporal.

But now I really must leave you to your own devices, as the hour is late and 
my mental processes are shutting down.

Good luck with the MoQer's guide to Essentialism which I hope to see by the 
end of the weekend.

With full confidence and deep respect,
Ham