From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Mon Jul 04 2005 - 19:54:09 BST
Okay, second part of my response to Han's message:
>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".
Well the only difference that I see is that in 'your' theory the divine not-other can exists in the same universe as all X's and not-X's. And 'it' will be all of them. They don't rule each other out. Whereas in 'mine' theory 'unity' ceases to exists the moment 1 value rears 'it's ugly head'. Because you cannot introduce a value, without acknowledging that the value is not true for something or sometime.
Well.... in truth, it becomes more complicated then that...
>Mark:
(And here Reinier becomes Mark, so I myself am both Reinier and not Reinier. Does this make me a tiny bit Divine? ;-)
>> 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?
Yes, the only pitty is that he focused a lot on the 4 levels (also important, don't get me wrong) and he didn't really philosophise on this theme in depth.
>
>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.
More so then we thought at first. I still see some differences in the basics though.
>
>> 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.
It's mostly in my head, but I find that answering questions is the best way for me to write it down. But don't get your hopes up that it's a big philosophy or something. If I may define it, at this moment it's mostly a mixture of Zen-Buddhism (stripped of everything dogmatic or ritual), Pirsig's Lila, some fragmented info on Re-incarnation, and a bit of me.
>
>> 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.
Kindly provide some more explanation on the above paragraph.... I'm still struggling.
>
>Great talking to you again, Reinier. And please feel free to ask me about
>any points of Essentialism that are giving you trouble.
The biggest problem at the moment is to find time to read it all. If we both hang around on this mailinglist long enough we will discuss it.
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 : Tue Jul 05 2005 - 00:51:47 BST