[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Heather Perella]

Thanks Reinier for the following translation,

     Reinier said:  "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."
     

     So here is where SOM comes from.  Once we value
something we have something we are not identifying. 
It does not have to be intentional.  It is just as we
identify something or focus upon it and other
potential values of the world get pushed aside.  This
has universal understanding in may fit into much of
the current discussions.  If this is not what you are
saying, then this is what I am saying after reading
your comment.  Your comment stimulated this in me. 
     
 
     Reinier said:  "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 travel 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."

     Once we value DQ we organize it into our
understanding.  Yet, DQ is more than this.  Once we
notice something new, beyond what we currently value,
we might try to understand this DQ experience.  We put
it into SQ.  Putting DQ into SQ is a way for us to
understand that which is DQ.  This balancing act is
fully realized in moments that are quiet.  Where we
are taken out of element into something totally
different for us.  How much of any method of achieving
this is true or not may not be what's important.  What
might be even more important is that this kind of
experience happens.  This is the awe of Shinto.  This
is the Zen of ordinary life.  This is the drinking of
alcohol on Friday nights by those who want to quickly
leave the week behind.  
 
     Reinier said:  "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))."

     It's use might be, instead of drinking alcohol to
leave the week behind, one might notice the
nothingness that is.  Even if it is a nothingness
purely of my imagination.  To constantly try to
understand  nothingness we may lose our sense of
understanding anything that we thought really is here.
 How long might I contemplate something that is not
even here?  How am I able to even mention nothingness,
even though it is not here?  Because I mention
nothingness does that mean anything?  It doesn't have
to.  Notice that I might not even be talking about
what your talking about, yet, I can use the same
words.  Terminology sometimes doesn't even point in
directions we can all understand.  Terminology doesn't
even have to be sign posts pointing the way.  How is
it then these spin-offs keep happening?  Spin offs of
what?  The spin-offs that seem to wander far and wide
away from what large, general terms cannot latch onto
and hold down to keep in focus.  The general terms
that try to focus our attention do just the opposite. 
They open our attention to a large arena of space. 
Whether that space is space-time or not, the arena is
quite large.  Thus, to pin-point something that is
much larger than my tiny skull might be impossible. 
Try pointing your finger at the sky.  Does the finger
encompass the whole sky and earth when pointing?  You
might be saying I am talking about everything, and you
might be trying to point out what that everything is
that you are trying to point out to me, but go ahead,
try and point your finger at everything.  It is
impossible.  First of all, I can't point at the middle
of earth.  The top of the earth is in the way.  Could
our imaginations take us to this middle of the earth
that I am trying to point at?  Well, that all depends
on what might be the real influence of the middle of
the earth, thus, would not this influence of the
middle of the earth be the real activity, thus, the
real middle of the earth, making the middle of the
earth what it is?  Can such influences be this
powerful to have the middle of earth hold its' central
power to the crust of the earth and us?  Thus, this
power being held to even have the middle of the earth
be the middle of the earth not the outside part of the
earth, could such a power be then what we would have
to call the middle of the earth, because if we take it
away, then no middle of the earth exists, thus, it is
definitely part of the middle of the earth?  If it is
part of it, then it is it also.  The black hole at the
center of galaxy holds such power.  Without it the
galaxy probably wouldn't hold.  Why am I even talking
about this?  To show how easy our attention could
travel all over the place in this huge universe of
ours, and yet, all this space-time to travel our
attention through, is so big, could we possibly fill
it up with our thoughts from this tiny skull?  No,
because this tiny skull is just that, tiny and no
matter how much I try, I can't get it any bigger to
fill all my attention into this much bigger universe. 
General terms leave a lot of room for interpretation. 
Dynamic quality does just that.

SA 

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