From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sun Jul 03 2005 - 19:57:26 BST
Hello again, Reinier --
> Nothingness, IMHO, is no matter, no space and no time.
> What in classic science is to be understood as the moment
> before the big-bang (I believe).
Leaving out the 'big bang' for now (because I believe reality is essentially
timeless), I would say we agree on what nothingness is. Our disputes
concern whether space is the same as nothingness, and what the antithesis of
unity is.
> We may mean the same thing by nothingness, but then I think you should not
refer > to it as space.
It's the other way around. I refer to space as nothingness in order to
demonstrate that space is the intellectual apperception (rationalization) of
nothingness. I can't imagine ever having a need to refer to nothingness as
"space".
I stand by my previous statement:
> > Saying that the antithesis of unity is a duality is like saying that the
> > opposite of one is two. The antithesis of Oneness is Multiplicity.
That's
> > the point I'm trying to make. To the finite mind Absolute Essence is
> > equivalent to Nothingness, because both are unexperiencable.
Apparently, you still disagree:
> Unity-duality is not the same as one-two.
> Something that has no unity must have duality.
> You may call it multiplicity, but that can always be
> simplified to duality (A or not A).
If multiplicity can so easily be reduced to duality, how do you explain
differentiated existence ... a 26-letter alphabet? ... a 48-chromosome
zygote cell? ...the Fortune Top 100 list? The only duality here is in our
"mode of apprehending" existence -- i.e., as a cognitive subject observing a
multiform object.
> If in a universe there's an 'A', but nowhere in that
> universe at no time there's a 'not A' then people
> will not be able to experience A.
> So our experiencable universe is made up of A's
> that all have 'not-A's, therefore I say it's duality.
That's a fascinating theory which is new to me. Sort of a theory of
opposing possibilities, I guess. It's definitely not the classic dualism of
Philosophy. Can you tell me where it comes from?
You may have spotted Prof. Clyde Miller's logical syllogism for the Cusan
not-other in my Creation hypothesis: "For any given non-divine X, X is not
other than X, and X is other than not X." This would seem to lend support
your oppositional theory. Of course Miller uses this premise to demonstrate
how Cusa's not-other defines the ineffable in a unique way: "What is unique
about the divine not-other is precisely that it is not other than either X
or not X".
Ham asked;
> Are you suggesting that the reality
> of space depends on the concept
> we choose to think about it?
Mark:
> Yes, and that's where Pirsig's MOQ fit's in so nicely.
> We call something a chair which means we value it
> as a chair, rather then as a pile of wood.
> Somebody in need for a fire to keep his house warm
> may actually value it as a pile of wood.
> But as we value the chair, we choose to value it
> separate from it's surrounding. We choose to value it
> as an object. We do that with everything on every level.
> And this is exactly where Zen 'works', we let go of valuing
> the experiences we have. We still experience a noice [??],
> but we no longer value it. By 'de-valuing' every single
> experience, or rather not judge anything, one is able to
> experience things more directly and more as a united whole.
Interesting, and quite true. Pirsig also was fond of suggesting that if we
don't value something it doesn't exist for us as anything. We simply don't
experience it at all. (It's a "nothing" to us.) I think that concept
establishes the primacy of Value (or Quality) far better than his over-used
"sitting on a hot stove" analogy, don't you?
In Essentialism, I've postulated nothingness (the "negate" of the self/other
dichotomy) as the delimiting agent for man's cognizance of being. So, in
this context at least, we all seem to be supporting each other. Perhaps
this discussion is more about our differences in expressing a concept rather
than disagreement with the concept itself.
> I may not use the word duality in a correct philosophical way...
> I am aware of that. I hope I've made clear what I mean by it?
Yes, you have, Mark. And if you've written this up somewhere or can provide
a reference to a source for this concept, kindly let me know.
> Can it not be that man's valuistic attachment is the sole obstacle
> of become part of that absolute beingness?
Did you mean to say "...the sole obstacle to becoming a part of (Essence)"?
No, I believe man is by divine nature a part (more like "value") of Essence.
He is the "denied other" whose nothingness (non-being) in existence
represents the "not" in the essential not-other. Have you worked that out?
It's really not as complicated as it looks at first glance.
Great talking to you again, Reinier. And please feel free to ask me about
any points of Essentialism that are giving you trouble.
Essentially yours,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 03 2005 - 21:11:11 BST