Hi Ron --
> I have been following your threads w/Krimmel and I > follow you and agree with your statements up until > (maybe this is my misunderstanding) the negation of the > essent, when summed up means because there is > substance in the unverse its negate is nothingness a > vacuum an absolute zero with the rational of since > there is a one(1) there must be a zero(0) and > that tension is what drives all. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt with 'Kimmel'. I think the confusion here is a result of looking at existence as a "quantitive" reality and seeing its "divisions" in Newtonian or arithmetical terms. (By the way, you are using "essent" correctly as the opposite of nothingness -- something I find difficult to do.) > The logical vehicle that brings us to this point and the > logic employed to arrive at essent vs. nothingness conflicts. > If infinity is infinte, how then may nothing (an absolute) exist > to create tension? Is this not preconcieved logic operating > at the most fundemental level? Not sure what you mean by "preconceived logic", unless you think I'm jumping to a conclusion or "begging the question." My ontology is based on Cusan logic which posits the 'first principle' as the indivisible 'not-other' [Essence] to which no other can be opposed. The metaphysical challenge is to explain how the appearance of opposition arises from an undifferentiated source. Since nothingness is the antithesis of Essence, it is my hypothesis that Essence is "negational", and that its absolute "denial" of nothingness is the creative principle by which existence is actualized. In other words, it is nothingness that creates "difference" by separating sensibility (or primary awareness) from the essent (i.e., Essence less Sensibility). This dichotomy establishes the "opposition" from which all existential differentiation appears. The negational mode of Essence is a self/other dichotomy whose contingencies are drawn to each other by the value of the Whole. (Perhaps the opposition of negation and affirmation qualify as "tension".) From the time/space perspective of the finite self, this is seen as becoming aware of being. Metaphysically, it is the negate acquiring the value of its estranged essent and reducing the essent to beingness in the process. Thus, what we call "experience" is the objectivization (differentiation) of being from value. > The final question is- are you not doubtful that the > theory of an absolute is ultimately based on a preconception? > I feel that once you hang your hat on any absolute, > even if it is absolute zero(nothingness) > You are hanging your hat on pre-conception and the finite. It is an "intuition", certainly, if this is what you mean by "preconception". As with any ontology, it's only a hypothesis -- my theory of creation. (I leave the doubts to you folks ;-) You're most welcome, Ron. Incidentally, most of what I've outlined above is developed in more detail on my website at www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm . Thanks for your interest. Essentially yours, 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
