[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[platootje at netscape.net]

SA,

You said:

     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.

Me:
This is so far my main disagreement with Ham, although with Ham I never 
feel I'm discussing the MoQ, but more metaphysics in general. But yes, 
I feel negaing is the seperator, but the word 'negating' stems from 
this discussion with Ham. I may as well use valueing. When you say 
'something has value' you identify something, you give it the atribute 
'value'. With this attribute it stands out from its immediate surround 
which doesn't have that exact value. Hence, your seperating or dividing 
it. There's a X (having value) seperated from the not-X.

SA:
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)

Me:
Well, although you add poetic value to my analogy, I would like to make 
a clarification.
I am that comb, or at least, part of the comb creates me. That what's 
undivided by the comb is unity, DQ. Valueing is the comb, the 'now'. 
When the Comb 'hits' DQ it values it, organizes it, makes it SQ. We are 
the comb, always looking backwards, always seeing what's already been 
valued. So we trafel backwards through the Essential universe and all 
we see is what the comb has left, structure and SQ, thinking that's all 
there is.
Sometimes we feel what's behind our backs, in front of the comb. By 
mystic expirements we may even forget about the comb and just see the 
beach.

You:
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.

Me:
I agree with that conclusion. That's my problem with nothingness, I 
don't see the use for it, and I can't fit it in logically. (I've 
written a piece about the logica that I thought supported the MoQ and 
to some extend Ham's thesis as well, but nothingness wasn't a part of 
that. But it was rather abstract and got about zero reactions (maybe 
Ham did react though)).

You:
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.

Me:
I sort of thing that Ham would agree to saying Essence is DQ and 
existence is SQ, but I'm not sure. (He'll always have a 
counter-argument ;-) (no offense Ham))


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

You react:
     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."

Me:
The metaphysics part may be the most complex, or the MoQ may appeal 
more to people not so much interested in that part of it. I don't know.
For me the strong parts of Pirsig's work are the abandoning of Subject 
- Object (though not exclusive to Pirsig) and the concept of DQ and SQ. 
I don't agree with the moral-theory based on the 4 levels of SQ.


You:
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.

Me:
I recognize this, I do.

You:
     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?

Me:
See my answer above, I can relate to valueing as the creator of object 
subject. I can relate to dynamic and static quality. I can even relate 
to dividing SQ in different levels.
The biggest mistake however I think that's made in the MoQ (and by 
Pirsig himself) is stating that 'A has more value then B'. Anything 
that has value is not DQ, therefor anything that has value is a result 
of that value, is static because of that value. So no matter what 
level, having value means being deprived of dynamic quality. What is 
forgotten is why the intellectual level is above the social level and 
so on. It is because every next level has less solid Static Quality. 
That makes the level 'better', but not the things in the level that 
have that quality, because they still have static quality. They are 
still valued.

Kind regards,
Reinier.
___________________________________________________
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
http://mail.netscape.com