[MD] The first cut. (Remailed)

[118]

Hi Ham,

Certainly the circles are of my own making.  However, I like to feel
as if there is progress being made in my understanding of
Essentialism.  Rather than address what you explain point by point, I
am sending you a presentation on Quality.  We can then address the
topic from my point of view.  Check your inbox.
Cheers,
Mark

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:59 AM, 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".
>> 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
> 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