[MD] Sneddon Thesis

[Heather Perella]

     [Ham]
>From a teleological viewpoint, negation creates an
"unbalanced system" whose subjective agent is driven
to reverse the differentiating affects of negation.  

----------
     This I understand, but in my own way of course. 
I reverse what seems to be differentiated by noticing
how this universe is as such due to differentiation
canceling each other out endlessly, in other words,
never-getting-to-the-bottom-of-this.


     [Ham]
I know it seems strange, but I maintain that the
dynamics of existence are such that the "negate"
negates its own nothingness, thereby reclaiming its
essential value and ending the dichotomy.

----------
     Sure, but this is to be understood in its' own
Way.  You probably understand so exactly, so
precisely, then, you even add the word strange.  You
go on to say negate negates its own nothingness, thus,
nothing negates nothing, yes, strange.  I've read it
put this way before.  It is strange.  How do we
understand what is strange?  We come to know it, and
then, it may be this way always, we try to explain it,
but can't.  Lao-tzu states the Way is obscure, but
goes on to explain, with length, this Way that is
obscure.  So, you say negate negates.  How nothing
negates nothing, and yet, makes sense to you.  Oh,
that is strange.
     I also understand reclaiming its essential value
and ending the dichotomy.  To end the dichotomy.  Has
not that been the Way for all philosophies, for all
humans, for all the ways of life.  So many have come
and gone.  Philosophers throughout time could sit and
argue their point, and if around still might try to
make it clear with their distractions over and over
again.  Me included.  Maybe this is why some become
recluses.  They realize what it is, but can't explain
it anymore.  They just show people, the best way they
know how.  For it is simply not something that can be
just explained, but lived.  The words will keep coming
as one lives, and the explanations no doubt clearer. 
Yet...   

     So, what I'm saying is, I think I get what your
sayin'.  I even notice your motive, which is to get
beyond the dichotomies (remember I asked you what your
motive was long ago, but you avoided that question for
some reason).  How to stay clear minded?  How to stay
were the dichotomies will cease being such a
distraction to this ultimate reality?  How we avoid
dichotomying in order to explain ultimate reality? 
How we avoid saying being-nothing, negate negates and
thus, being?  Sure, rhetorical questions, but none the
less, none the more, isn't this what we're doing being
rhetorical by using dichotomies to explain a
non-dichotomy?  I am guilty of this also.



evening, shadows across the hills, blue, blue sky,
SA  


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com