Samuel Palmer (spalmer@fundy.ca)
Sat, 10 Jan 1998 21:35:31 +0100
> (Big point to spin off from this: those cowardly physicists, who won't dare
> to speculate on what existed before the Big Bang, even that there were such
> an existence, preferring to let you know, with one of those laughs that
> disguises itself as a cough, that, "That's a matter for religion," while
> twinkling their eyes to let you know they don't rate the intellectual
> credentials of religion in the slightest, and thus manage to sweep the whole
> matter under the carpet - they can be out-argued! Science is a mere branch
> of philosophy, which therefore outranks it.)
>
> Richard McNeill Douglas.
>
Wow! in a roundabout way, it looks like you've just defined what
nothing is. This brings to mind that great passage from the Old
Testament, "In the beginning...". The book of Genesis describes the
creation of the universe in several stages of division, beginning with
the abstract division of "lightness from darkness", and the beautifully
told story of Adam and Eve, in their Fall from the Garden. If we some of
the "dated" creation myths in terms of pure abstraction, they begin to
come accross as very probable explanations for our own existence.
Science have myths of their own which they derive from exhaustive
inspection, which by all accounts is an invitation to self-indulgence.
> We can possess a concept marked "nothing", but not the meaning which it
> implies. That is entirely virtual. It does not exist; we project its
> existence. The same goes for the idea of a perfect circle, say, or infinite
> beauty. We can assume the existence of these things, but never actually see
> them. The moment we interrogate them, try to locate them, pin them down,
> they collapse, fragmenting into individual, limited parts. We can find
> relative absences of things, and relative beauties, but never absolutes.
>
> Richard McNeill Douglas.
>
I agree. The concept of Nothing cannot be adequately dealt with
without leaving it out of the conversation altogether. We all live in
the realm of the somethings, after the fall. Our world is one of water
and sand, flesh and bones, economy and politics, and our world wide web.
In that sense, we are the fragments, after the interrogation, and
Quality is the Tower of Babel that leaves us spinning in different
directions.
> There is no higher dimension, no world apart from the one single system of
> Existence. To understand this, is to know that when one says, "This is it,"
> that this life is all we've got, it is no cause for depression, for there
> never were an other world, and so we are deprived nothing. To realise this
> is to wake up, to discover that one is on the cutting edge of life.
>
This is what I've been wanting to hear. We spend too much time
sporting our command over the abstract language, that we forget the
chair we're sitting in, we forget our friends and families and scowl at
the pigeon lady uptown. We really need to assume our roles in evolution.
As a philosopher, Pirsig spoke openly about his lack of social skills
and an inability to communicate with the peope who were closest to him.
yet undertook an exhaustive definition of morality.
My suggestion for the Lila squad would be to arrgange scheduled
activities to supplement our friendly banter. For example, Next Saturday
Night, we should all make a point of going out dancing, and then write
about it the following Sunday. Let's see who'se up for some Dynamic
Quality. Does everyone have a disco in their neighborhood? "Do a little
dance, make a little love, get down tonight..."
- Samuel Palmer
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:37 CEST