[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Heather Perella]

Reinier, Marsha, Amirman, Khaled, Ham and others
mentioned,

     You may have seen I dropped out of this
discussion, because of the lack of quality being used
either as a contrast entity or similar entity when
used with Ham's Essence thesis.  Yet, you have
wonderfully used quality and this helps me understand
what I myself was beginning to interject into Ham's
thesis.

     Reinier said:  "I don't agree, Essence does not
negate itself. Essence is pure undivided, dynamic
quality.  We experience separation in time and space
because we create existence.  Time and space are
illusionairy concepts, constructs of the human mind. 
Because we need that concept."

     Yes, Essence was the stuff of quality, too.  Why?
 Because the discussion on what essence is kept going
and going and going and going and going, etc...  Your
point on negation separating, not nothingness, is also
a different angle and one, for now, that seems to best
explain the thesis.  Nothingness to me was always the
rest of essence that I could not understand and did
not see, yet, it was there - somewhere - just not
fully grasped by my tiny skull, thus, it had a quality
of nothingness to me.  Like your analogy.  The comb on
the beach separating the sand.  When I am being combed
on one part of the beach, yet, the comb kept combing
somewhere else, from my part of the beach I couldn't
see the rest of what the comb separated.  So from what
I could see - I see, yet, what I can't see - I can't
see and thus, knowing it is out there, I saw the comb
go that way, and even if I could move and catch-up to
the comb, but I see the comb disappear again, my habit
of catching the comb, then the comb disappears,
catching the comb, then the comb disappears, is to me,
something I can depend on happening.  Thus, even when
I see the comb disappear, again, I trust that I can
follow the tracks, no matter which way the comb goes,
and I will find the comb, again, I will see the comb,
again.  Thus, when the comb disappears, yet again, I
begin to realize that the comb is out there somewhere,
even though I don't see the comb, I do not see a
thing, thus, I see nothing (as pertaining to the comb)
I still think something is out there in that nothing,
yet, my limited tiny skull can't see everything.  This
is where my point of view on the subject has been
coming from, and this is how I define nothingness. 
You differ and say nothingness is take the beach and
comb away entirely, and that is nothingness.  Sure
that would be nothingness to, but we are using
nothingness in totally different ways.  Thus, totally
different approaches to understanding Ham's thesis,
thus, now I wonder what this has to do with anything,
if we can approach this in such and such a way and
come to such and such a conclusion?  Thus, this whole
up in the air kind of approach leaves a lot of room
for dynamic quality, but Ham has not been able to
compare quality with his thesis.  Either quality fits
in his thesis or not, yet, somehow I am fitting it
into his thesis and you are, too.  Yet, does this, for
Ham, have to be a fitting that must have one being
more superior than the other?  Again, since Ham would
be the expert on his thesis he may be able to provide
insight on this matter, and he may have in the past
before I entered the MOQ.org, and thus, am too late
for any comparisons?

     Reinier last posting says:  "...much more
interesting then the 
constant Moral's debate (with all the poliics involved
and everything)"

     Yes, exactly.  It's like what Marsha said last
month in her opening post to [MD] Ham & Swiss and what
Amirman said in his opening of [MD] atom bomb and
torture.  The MOQ doesn't come up very much, and the
fitting of quality into our discussions would make
quality much more applicable to our understanding,
unless, long ago many on this MOQ.org have (1) given
up on MOQ because of its' poor quality (2) because it
is difficult and thus out of our reach intellectually
and/or practically; and/or (3) people just don't use
it for some reason, they have other motives.

      Yeah, we have some of the same interests.  Ham's
thesis was challenging, and I like challenges, but
when it goes on and on with question after question
that delves into what He thinks is the best approach
to this world, I find this question after question the
same as participating with dynamic quality.  Therefore
I find the experience no different than what Pirsig
has to say.  I was trying to come to understanding of
this experience I was having, but Ham is not up to
that kind of discussion, which is not something wrong
or anything.  Thus, I felt I needed to just
contemplate, look at other posts, and try to touch
upon or question some of the discussions going on here
at MOQ.org.  I was not finding much discussion that
seemed to be where my questions are, which left it up
to me to answer.  Nothing wrong with that.  Now your
stating some of things I have been wondering, so it
makes it easier when two are questioning or
contemplating similar events.  This is not a complaint
or a disgruntled opinion of what others are doing is
not what I am doing.  No way, that's not what I am
saying.  What I am trying to say is I needed to sit
back and contemplate my position for a moment after
all of this stuff on the MOQ.org and others areas of
interest that I have collide into a view called mine. 
Nothing wrong with that I hope.
     The [MD] strong wind (contrasting and/or other
views) against/or not compared, thus, not aligning
with Pirsig's Quality blows here at times on MOQ.org. 
The [MD] independence in the use of our own personal
intellect (even if Pirsig is used, because Pirsig's
Quality has a lot of room for freedom) and ordinary
life is in question.  For any spherical thinking
[Khaled's theory] to take place here we probably need
others that post in the MOQ to comment upon the
statements I have placed above:  #'s (1), (2), (3).
     This might be a good starting point for us to see
where we all are coming from pertaining to our
interest or competition or any other relational word
one might use to show where we stand with Pirsig's
Quality.  Sure we all have our own individual
interests, and I might need to change some of mine;
but where do we all stand in relation to Pirsig's
Quality is not a too far fetched question for a MOQ
discussion forum, is it? 


Reinier I will post this under this Subject so you
might catch it, since I am discussing this with you. 
I will also post this as a separate new subject
called:  [MD] Where do we all stand in relation to
Pirsig's Quality?.  The intent is to see if I attract
others to comment, since as I mentioned in the last
paragraph above, I would like to see where other
people stand when it comes to Pirsig's Quality.


Spiritual Adirondack (SA)

     

     

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com