[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>Subject: Re: [MD] The differentiating nothingness
>Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:25:50 -0500
>
>
>
>How do you account for forms that we separate by shape, such as square,
>round, triangular, rectangular?  None of these would appear to have a
>"negational" counterpart.

Hi Ham,

This reminds me of Buckminster Fuller's work. All forms have what he called 
complementaries...the form of a triangle (for example) isn't simply one 
triangle. Rather (according to Fuller) it is actually two triangles...the 
triangle delineated by the area inside the lines, and a second triangle 
delineated by the area outside the lines. This second triangle negates the 
first...one would not exist without the other.

>Do you separate me from you by imagining a "not
>me" and a "not you"?

Of course we don't imagine a "not me" and a "not you" per se. Imagine a 
three dimensional triangle (tetrahedron) and think of the two tetrahedrons 
that compose the one.

>What would a "not-me" look like?

Everything that is "not-you," from a subject-object point of view.

>  What would a "not
>walk in the woods" feel like?

A nap on the sofa. :)

>You see my problem?

Yes but it's only a problem from the S-O perspective, imo.

Thank you,

Dan