[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[David M]

Hi Ham

Just thought I'd see if any common ground or clea rdifferences
could be teased out again. See my comments below.

DM

DM:
>> Creation hypothesis:
>> Suffice it to say that the two primary essents
>> are "nothing" and "not-nothing".  Essentially, "not-nothing" is
>> experiential "beingness" (the not-nothing (or thing/object) of
>> awareness), so that "nothing" is the "negate" or emptiness of
>> awareness.  Both of these essents are contingencies of Value;
>> that is, they exist by virtue of the Value of Nothing.
>>
>> same thing different words, better fit to MOQ
>



> I find it both interesting and flattering that you would be willing to
> compare my hypothesis to the MoQ.  However, I must take issue with your
> all-negative reformulation -- even if it does make a "better fit".

> "Not-nothing" equates to "something" which I call Essence.  (I assume 
> Pirsig
> would call it Quality.)  So how does "not-nothing" improve the 
> proposition?

DM: Well, MOQ starts with Nothing rather than essence -so that's a clear
difference and saves having to explain where this essence comes from.
As they are both sources they are going to end up looking pretty similar.

>
> Also, if you define the negate as "emptiness of awareness", you not only
> defeat its purpose but deny its place in existence.  The negate IS
> awareness.  I know you want badly to assign it to not-nothing or Quality;

DM: No to nothing which is the clearing in which qualities appear.

> but that doesn't make metaphysical sense.

DM: To you.

At least not according to Cusan
> logic which is the cornerstone of my hypothesis.

DM: Maybe its holding you back.


>
> Look at it this way.  If Quality is your 'not-nothing' it must be DQ,

DM: No, not-nothing is really about SQ. Nothing implies DQ by its
ability to give way and allow SQ to appear.

 which
> would mean that SQ is nothing.

DM: No SQ is the only something we have.

 But SQ is the differentiated Quality; it is
> that level in which the particulars are experienced.

DM: We experience qualities (universals) in SQ patterns,
and particulated in space-time

 So it is necessarily
> "something", i.e., things and events.   Furthermore, if your 'nothing' is
> not awareness,

DM: Hard to say, awareness of what given all the nothingness?

 I have to equate awareness with the particulars of
> experience, which of course I'm not willing to do.

DM: Say that again?

>
> Proprietary awareness is outside the realm of the relational world it
> experiences and is a primary roleplayer in existence.

DM: Nothingness, heaving with potential is not in space-time, but we
have an undeniable connection to it as human beings.


 While I realize that
> this describes Pirsig's hated SOM, I believe you folks are too quick to
> dismiss such a scenario.

DM: I think you misunderstand both SOM and MOQ. In MOQ DQ is the
source that has no-thingness about it. In SOM the subject still gets tied up
with thingness. But in MOQ DQ is something more primordial than human being.
But equally DQ is essential for a human being to be alive and active and 
evolving.
I use 'essential' ironically as the claim is that Nothing is essential!


>
> What WOULD be a more workable ontology for the MoQ is a concept of
> undifferentiated Quality as the absolute source -- the Essence of Reality.


DM: That's DQ I would say. But I would resist calling it essential because
what essence could you ascribe to it? Better to say Nothing. Good connect
to eastern thought too.


> But it would have to allow for proprietary awareness in the principal 
> role.

DM: For me, the purpose of the cosmos is the exloration of awareness.
Is it there before the journey. Yes and no. If we eventually return home
we will have changed yet still able to recognise where we came from?


> These have been my two contentions concerning the inadequacy of Pirsig's
> philosophy.  Sadly, I don't see any willingness to yield on these points.

DM: You could yield instead!
>
> Anyway, I appreciate your thoughtful suggestion, David.  It certainly
> demonstrates the parallel of our two philosophies, and I'll admit it's a
> damned good try at merging the fundamentals.


DM: Maybe, see you at the top, if you think your way is better.

>
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>