Hi Mark [with references to Marsha] --
So, to improve my understanding of Nothingness, does this have anything to with Emptiness as Marsha has been bringing up?
Nothingness is a non-relational term. It implies emptiness only insofar as there are no boundaries to what is "empty". For instance, that a cup is empty of contents does not mean that it contains nothingness. A perfect vacuum is "emptiness" only if the bell jar in the pumping mechanism is disregarded.
In other words, metaphysical nothingness isn't to be found in the physical world -- not because it doesn't factor in existence, but because we do not experience it.
On the other hand, sensible awareness is a physical nothingness. We can't measure, quantify, or localize it. How, then, is it possible for an existent not to exist? Metaphysically speaking, neither sensibility nor value exists. When I'm careful, I use the term "essent" to identify a derivative of Essence that functions in the relational world. I can do this with impunity, as I have posited Essence as not only indivisible but also absolute. Which means that even Nothing is essential in that it represents the negation of Essence. It is this negation which accounts for the difference and contrariety of finite existence.
As for Marsha's interpretation of Eastern philosophy, "emptiness" and "fullness" have the same exact meaning to a Buddhist: namely, not divided into "things", not relative, non-dimensional and absolute. Meister Eckhart described God as "absolute fullness of being." His meaning is clear: the primary source is not encumbered by "thingness" and relations. Instead, it is perfect=eternal=immutable Oneness. Now I ask you: Is this "emptiness" or "fullness"?
Existents can only occur (emerge?) as a negation of the absolute source. There is no other logical explanation, for there is nothing -- no othernenss, "outside of" Absolute Essence -- from which to create a physical universe. Stars, planets, rocks and trees are "other" to us because of the nothingness of the cognizant negate that experiences and defines all finite entities. In short, finitude is an illusional hybrid of being and nothing constructed (reducted?) from essential value by the negated self.
This analysis probably includes more detail than your question requires, but I offer it as food for additional thought. If it's any consolation, I have never managed to convey this ontogeny successfully. Either I'm a lousy comunicator or the folks here are so accustomed to denouncing anything that smacks of mysticism or supernaturalism that they pay me no heed.
Perhaps someone of your biophysical bent will indulge me by giving due consideration to this concept and, hopefully, provide the proper logistical framework with which to articulate it.
Thanks, 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
