Hello Ham, Ron: > Some questions you need to address in your ontology: > > 1. If what is by nature absolute and undifferentiated, how does "nothingness" > appear out of it? > > 2. Since nothingness can not logically exist within what is absolute and > undifferentiated how may it be negated? > > 3. Any negation of nothingness is going to logically result in nothingness. > something can not logically come from nothing.
Ham: I don't claim an ability to "describe" the ineffable, but simply to explain its "dynamics" in a context that logicians like you can accept. It's obvious to me that although we can't experience "nothingness" in our world of appearances, it nevertheless accounts for the differentiation and contrariety of our experience. Like the proverbial "zero" which mathematically represents "nothing", it doesn't exist; yet existence is not experienceable without it. One could say that nothingness is conspicuous by its absence. Ron: That is because zero, like "nothingness" is a pure abstraction. It holds special significance to you because your entire ontology rests apon it. To be honost, this part of your explanation should be better accounted for it is the anchor of your Essentialism. Mathematics in the art of measure was utilized for centuries before the abstraction of zero was invented. This philosophical discussion is an old one, a good read of Aristotles Metaphysics really explains some good reasons as to why "nothingness" and zero are riddled with inconsistancies and problems as far as a primary explanation of experience. Ham: Likewise, I could say that the Absolute doesn't possess nothingness BECAUSE Essence negates it. This would, of course, make Essence "negational" in a logical sense. As I consider Difference to be the experiential ground of physical reality, and negation its 'actuator', I have no problem with the idea that the world of appearances is the "negative mode" of Essence. After all, moral judgments are based on the relation between good and evil, and experience is based on the contrariety of light and dark, large and small, attraction and repulsion, birth and death, self and other, and a whole host of opposites. Ron: Do realize that dualism and opposites result from the act of explanation and the use of language, to take them as actual constituants of reality is a reification of those relational concepts of meaning. This is where our biggest disagreement lies making the discussions arising from your assertions difficult to persue. Ham: Something has to account for the antithetical equivalent of Absolute Essence. What else but nothingness represents that antipodal state? Were Essence to disappear, what else would take its place? Moreover, we know that man's sensory apperception is limited. To a blind man, vision is nothingness. It seems to me that being limited to five senses deprives man of other sensibilities that are regarded as nothing at all. To complete the ontology of Essence, there needs to be a free agent that can experience reality as an otherness to itself. Since negation is the power of the Absolute to make such a perspective possible, I submit that we are created by a negational Source. I'll leave the logic of this ontogeny to you, Ron, unless you can provide an alternative. Ron: Well Ham whatever works for you, but dont be surprised if the more discerning philosopher doesent swallow your reasons, you'll have better luck with those who dont ask many questions. cheers 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
