From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Sun Jul 03 2005 - 09:25:12 BST
Hello Ham,
>What is your hypothetical "empty space", then? As I said before:
>> > It is the nothingness that separates one thing from another in
>> > existence.
>
>Your concept of space is dimensional -- an "extension" of nothingness. But
>there can be no extension without an objective reference, that is, something
>to "extend from". In your hypothetical empty space, those reference points
>would not exist. So you're defining space as a nothingness relative to
>nothing. It's still nothingness, Reinier.
no, to me it's not. Nothingness, IMHO, is no matter, no space and no time. What in classis science is to be understood as the moment before the big-bang (I believe) Therefor you can not speak about 'before' technically. Those are concepts the human mind is not capable of really grasping. Only understaning on an intellectual level. The sole concept of space abandones nothingness instantly because now there's a 'here' and a 'there', or a 'here' and a 'not here', so there's duality.
>But space is not an "object". Nothingness is not an entity. In your
>concept, it's a void, the absence of beingness. You don't directly
>experience nothingness; what you experience is the absence of matter. It is
>a not-experience, insensible nothingness without the attributes of
>dimension.
>
We may mean the same thing by nothingness, but then I think you should not refer to it as space.
>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.
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 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, therefor I say it's duality.
Abolute beingness would then be only 'A', and no 'not A'. And then there would be no need to call it 'A'. Which makes it indeed the same as absolute nothingness.
>Yes, although I'm no academic, unfortunately I've been unable to articulate
>the concept in the kind of language Pirsig uses so freely. I am working
>continually to simplify it; however, I feel it's important to be consistent
>throughout -- which is why I've included a glossary of terms. The Creation
>Hypothesis is the toughest section. Also check out the FAQs sheet
>(accessible from my home page), which is a kind of summary of the basic
>concepts.
>
I will certainly go and read some more, as I said, it's very interesting.
>I don't understand your meaning here. Are you suggesting that the reality
>of space
>depends on the concept we choose to think about it? Kindly elaborate.
>
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 seperate 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 valueing the experiences we have. We still experience a noice, but we no longer value it. By 'de-valueing' every single experience, or rather not judge anything, one is able to experience things more directly and more as a unite whole.
>I thought Pirsig was onto something, too, and I still think he was. But
>without a primary source for his Quality the theory falls apart. Patterns
>and levels are only ways to deal with relativity, not absolutes. They offer
>no essential meaning or purpose for man's existence. Like the maxim "Some
>things are better than others",
>we're impressed more by the simplicity of the idea than by its metaphysical
>logic.
>
Yes, I agree that it's not complete.
>I think you're confused by what duality really means in philosophy. The
>Cartesian duality was the split between mind and matter. For Pirsig it's
>the split between undifferentiated Quality and its "particulars". He
>"resolves" the duality by turning DQ it into a multiplistic SQ. We end up
>with a multiform esthetic system that's more complicated than the SOM he
>despises!
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?
>In my philosophy, Essence is the immutable not-other. It encompasses all as
>a not-other to itself. From man's perspective, everything is an "other" and
>the observer is a "nothing" (negate). But while man's experience of reality
>as the "other" is differentiated by nothingness, Essence transcends both
>otherness and nothingness. Yet, man's valuistic attachment to the source
>gives his existence an essential meaning and purpose. The value in every
>life-experience is never lost because it is derived from an uncreated,
>immutable source.
Can it not be that man's valuistic attachement is the sole obstacle of become part of that absolute beingness?
>
>Glad to have the opportunity to chat with someone willing to discuss the
>epistemological limits of existence. I like your concepts. Keep up the
>good work!
Same goes for me, looking forward to reading your next reply!
Best 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 : Sun Jul 03 2005 - 09:36:00 BST