[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Hi David --

I was somewhat surprised to see you joining in this discussion, until I saw
your MoQ references.  Well, if my hypothesis can be useful in understanding
Pirsig's philosophy, I shall feel honored.

 Ham:
> My theory is that absolute potentiality (Essence) becomes
> actualized (manifested as differentiated existence) by a
> negation or denial of itself.

DM:
> This is pretty close to what I could accept.
> But I have a more simple way to explain the difference
> required to create the actual. Absolute potential has to
> limit itself to create something without absolute potential,
> so yes this is a self-denial. What is given up is simply
> some potential but no all. When I say 'some', given
> absolute potential as the starting point, I mean almost
> all of its potential is withdrawn from some small remaining
> part that becomes the beginning of the actual. So this
> absolute potential is what Pirsig calls DQ.
> The actual is a broken off part of absolute potential and
> becomes actual.  However the link to DQ/absolute potential
> remains. Potential withdraws but it remains in touch and ...

I think we have to be cautious in speaking of "parts" and "sizes" when it
comes to the non-differentiated Absolute.  The trick here is to achive
differentiation (Cusa's actualization). Once we've got it, we can then talk
about apportioning it into its constituents.  This is the problem Reinier
and I are having with the whole negation concept.  I believe nothingness is
a primary factor; he does not.  I see nothingness fulfilling the topic
heading; he says differentiation only requires negation.

One theory I've been toying with is that Essence is the perfect coincidence
of two absolute extremes: Oneness and Infinitesimiltude (i.e., an absolute
number of infinitesimal points).  Proprietary (individual) awareness may be
considered one of the points, while the Whole remains a coherent unity.  An
analogy that comes to mind is the two sides of a coin.  Absolute Sensibility
is one side; the other/not-other side is the totality of differentiated
awareness.  In Essence the duality of "two sides" coincide as One.  Although
this would eliminate the need for primary negation, I don't like it.  It
destroys my concept of Value as well as the possibility of a "separate
agent" -- the negate -- which I believe is essential for the realization of
Value.

DM continues:
> The potential continues to pour its dynamic/creativity
> into the actual, to negate its original withdrawal to begin
> the actual. In this picture sq is anything that endures in
> the actual, but eventually, like the T-rex they may pass
> out of the actual and back into the potential. I would see
> this limitation of the actual as being precisely what is
> addressed by the anthropic principle, that there is no
> explanation for this universe rather than all the many
> other possible settings for the cosmological constants,
> the explanation is that agency is the negation of the possible
> so that what existence is, is an exploration of the possible,
> and an exploration can only cover one pathway
> at a time, and we all cover one, and each is valid.

This is interesting, but even more complex than what we've been discussing.
I don't really understand what Pirsig was driving at with his anthropic
principle, so to me it reads like a tossed salad sprinkled with a lot of
metaphors.

I don't believe that anyone can attempt to explain the ultimate Source or
Creation with a  degree of certitude.  That fact alone is probably worth
more than my hypothesis.  It tells us that absolute truth is a "restricted
area" -- a potential risk of our freedom.  Nonetheless, I intend to keep
searching for a way to do it as long as I have a correspondent willing to
work with me.

If you feel that you can merge my ideas into the MoQ and make it more
meaningful, please be my guest.

Appreciate your interest, Dave.

--Ham