From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Mon Jul 04 2005 - 16:14:19 BST
Hello Ham
>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.
Yes, I think you're right
>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".
Okay, point taken, but that I should have said 'You shouldn't refer to space as nothingness'. Basically the dispute still stands.
About your remarks concerning unity-duality:
>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.
That sounds very SO. What I mean is this: In a completely value-free universe we would have the state that you describe as absolute nothingness or complete beingness. One single value means a split in that universe. From unity we went to a situation were a value existed, a label was placed. So it's the end of unity as we know it. The only we to go back to that unity is to let go of the value.
Value is nominated quality in a sence. Unity in that sence is unnominated quality (and nothing but unnominated quality).
You're right that my duality does not concernt the alfabet or any other non-dual collection.
>> 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?
Well it's a bit of different sources, digested and completed with some 'aha-erlebnis' of my own. I'm yet to find a theory that completely matches it.
Have to keep it short now, I'll respond to the rest of your post later.
Kind regards,
Reinier.
Oh, one more thing.....
You wrote:
>Yes, you have, Mark.
Ouch.....
Again kind regards, REINIER ;-)
__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
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 : Mon Jul 04 2005 - 16:55:33 BST