[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 20:44:17 -0500
>
>
>Hi Dan (and Reinier) --
>
>
>As Jimmy Durante used to say in his graveled voice, "Everybody wants 'ta 
>get
>inta da' act!"

Inka Dinka Doo!

>
>I had asked Reinier how negation would define physical entities without
>nothingness:
>
>
> > 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.
>
>Dan replied:
>
> > 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.
>
>That's like my analogy of a drinking glass.  It has an inside and an
>outside.  You couldn't have a glass without both.  I don't think that's an
>example of negation so much as eidetic imagery.  The point is that we can
>look for these anomalies "after the fact" of their existence.  We don't
>experience or imagine them in normal thoughts about objects in their
>absence.

I question whether the inside and outside of a glass are analogous to the 
point I'm making about triangles. There aren't always 2 glasses but there 
are always 2 triangles; we are simply unaware of the existence of the second 
negating triangle just as we're unaware of the negation related to the 
perception of reality. We are not intellectually trained to pick up that 
second triangle. Now, this is perhaps indeed eidetic imagery yet an image 
most people are totally unaware of.

>
>What Reinier and I are trying to do is come up with a hypothesis for
>creation from pure undifferentiated "beingness", which we are both calling
>Essence.  I maintain that we cannot "carve out" a finite thing from Essence
>without negating the background, that when we perceive a thing we
>intellectually annul or negate all that surrounds it.  For me, that's an
>application of nothingness; for Reinier it's imagining the thing
>simultaneously with its no-thing counterpart.  He says "you cannot create
>something without creating it's negate."

First, I would postulate that there is no such thing as "pure 
undifferentiated beingness." In order to "be" one must take on intellectual 
constructs provided by and supported by social patterns of value; one must 
become a member of the culture they inhabit; a person must belong; a person 
must construct and take on a "me."

Second, while it may well be that in the perception of Quality we tend to 
ignore the "background" and all that surrounds perception, it is learned 
social and intellectual responses that we are putting into play.

And third, there's always the guiding backdrop of the nothingness of death. 
It should color everything we do with a sense of urgency and purpose and 
serve to negate perception. In this sense, it appears that I agree with both 
you and Reinier.

Finally, fourth, regarding Essence... I don't know. I remember that you 
became quite perturbed with my critique of your essay when you first came 
aboard, and it's true that your unfamiliarity with Robert Pirsig's work may 
have colored my reading, but I think all things being equal, the simple 
explanation is the best. So I'll stick with Quality.

>
>I then asked:
> > Do you separate me from you by imagining a
> > "not-me" and a "not-you"?
>
>You answered:
> > 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.
>
>I take it that, whether it's a tetrahedron or a person, you're suggesting
>that we must negate the space or surrounding beyond the physical boundary 
>of
>that object or person to distinguish or delineate it.  Does ignoring the
>surround amount to reducing it to nothingness in your opinion?

I don't think it is us who does the negating so much as it is perception 
itself, or Dynamic Quality if you will.

>  If not, what
>does our rejection of the beingness "outside the line" amount to?

Ignorance.

>If so,
>where does the form of the image come from?

It comes through our culturally based knowledge of reality. Where else could 
it come from?

>
>I think it's possible to resolve the negation issue through logic, or at
>least come up with a plausible theory for it.  But what we still face is
>accounting for the form of the object, and that I'm afraid is beyond our
>grasp.  I've not read Pirsig for awhile, but I suspect he believes 
>universal
>forms (Platonic ideas) to be pre-planted out there in Quality, so that all
>we have to do is access them from the collective Intellect -- that is,
>presuming we're "sufficiently evolved" to recognize them.

I have read Mr. Pirsig's work repeatedly yet fail to find any mention 
whatsoever of a "collective intellect." It appears (to me) that Quality 
isn't "out there" nor is it "in here." Too, one must understand that social 
patterns of value are not a collective group of people, nor are they 
"things" that a person might put under a microscope and examine. A child 
knows what great intellect forgets so whether we're sufficiently evolved or 
not seems moot.

>
>Do you care to offer some theories that might be applied to a Creation
>hypothesis, mine or Pirsig's?

>From LILA:

"May I come out and fight?" the author said. "My exact statement was that 
people do disagree as to what Quality is, but their disagreement is only on 
the objects in which they think Quality inheres."

"What's the difference?"

"Quality, on which there is complete agreement, is a universal source of 
things. The objects about which people disagree are merely transitory. "

My oh my, what smart talk, Richard Rigel thought. "What 'universal source of 
things'? Some of us can do without that universal source of things, that no 
one else seems to be able to talk about but you. Some of us would rather 
stick with our good old-fashioned transitory objects. By the way, how do you 
keep in touch with that marvelous 'universal source of things'? Do you have 
some sort of special radio set? Hmmm? How do you keep in touch?"

The author did not answer.

"I'm waiting to hear," Richard Rigel said. "How do you keep in touch with 
Quality?"

The author still didn't answer.

Relief poured through Richard Rigel. He suddenly felt better than he had all 
morning. He finally communicated something to him. "There are answers," the 
author finally said, "but I don't think I can give them all to you this 
morning."

He wasn't going to get off that easy.

"Let me ask an easier question then," Richard Rigel said. "You are in 
contact with this 'universal source of things,' aren't you?"

"Yes," said the author. "You are too, if only you'd understand it. " 
(Chapter 6)

-----------------------------------------------------------

Dan comments:

A "universal source of things" sounds suspiciously like a creation 
hypothesis on my end. It appears to me that you're looking outside and 
inside (remembering your glass analogy) for an answer while the correct MOQ 
answer is neither. Understanding this involves giving up our cherished 
preconceived notions, however, rather than an evolutionary leap in thinking. 
IM(H)O, of course...

Thank you for your reply,

Dan