Hey, Joe --
Hi Ham and all,
Essence is not-being! Essence is the ultimate reality and
must be the primary Absolute Source of diversity.
There must be one attribute within the absolute potentiality
of Essence that qualifies as a differentiator --Nothingness,
the antithesis of Is-ness.
Absolutely right. And thank you for reiterating this truth. Negation has
been a bone of contention in my thesis for most of those willing to consider
it. So it's reassuring to know that you have a handle on the concept.
For me Essence divided is still Essence. To equate Essence
and Nothingness (not-being) to conceptualize an absolute
potentiality in Essence is confusing for me.
OK, fair enough. Let's see if we can clear up the confusion without
violating our initial premise.
Essence is the uncreated Absolute Source of diversity. Since it is
absolute, there is no "other" within or beside it, nor can Essence "add" to
what it already is. Therefore, the potentiality from which diversity
(differentiation) arises must be "reductive" rather than additive in nature.
That is to say, creation is a negation of Essence whereby Sensibility is
separated from a complementary 'essent' or insentient otherness called
being. This creates a Self/Other dichotomy -- the predecessor of all finite
differentiation.
Note that I am not equating Essence with its antithetical nothingness, but
only positing nothingness as the "differentiator" of creation. The redacted
(negated) contingents are derivatives of the undivided Source but not
Absolute Essence itself. I use the terms 'essent' and 'negate',
respectively, for Being (otherness) and Sensibility (self). Although I can
appreciate your wish to regard differentiated existence as "divided
Essence", in the strictness of "taking words seriously", it doesn't
accurately represent the ontogeny.
And while I have the opportunity, let me requote the explanation of my
previous post. (Unfortunately, in copying this from my website thesis the
dashes were converted to hyphens, which made reading difficult.)
[Ham, previously]:
The fundamental ontology of Essentialism is that Essence -- not being --
is the ultimate reality and the primary, Absolute Source of diversity.
For diversity (contrariety and difference) to arise from absolute Oneness,
there must be a "differentiator" within the absolute potentiality of
Essence.
But since essentialists define Essence as perfect "Is-ness" (Eckhart's
term for the All that IS), there is but one attribute within the absolute
potentiality of Essence that qualifies as a differentiator -- Nothingness,
the antithesis of Is-ness.
Essence denies that it is nothingness, and so does not possess it,
even though nothingness is actualized to create a differentiated universe
in which value-sensibility is a cognizant agent. Nothingness is the "not"
of negation that divides one thing from another in the objective world,
and one perspective from another in subjective experience. In other
words, creation is the negation of an "uncreated" Source that knows
no otherness. Everything that exists is "excluded" from this negational
Source that I call Essence. And what can't be defined as finite
'existents' -- Potentiality, Sensibility, and Value -- are the "essential
attributes" of Absolute Oneness.
Finally, I should call your attention to another distinction I make in my
ontology which tends to confuse readers. Inasmuch as Essence is not an
"existent" in the strictest sense of the word, I describe two "realities".
Essence is what I call Ultimate Reality, and Existence is finitude or
experiential reality.
Does any of this help to resolve your confusion, Joe? If not, perhaps you
can suggest a more logical way to articulate the essential ontology.
And thanks for your renewed interest,
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
