[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Greetings Dan --

I explained:

> 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.

You responded:
> 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."

You'll note I put quotes around "beingness".  I agree that being is defined
by space/time and, in my opinion anyway, is always finite.  It's just that,
like Pirsig with his Quality, I find it difficult sometimes to express
precisely what I mean by Essence.  Unlike the MoQ's author, however, I feel
obliged to try.

As far as the term "being" used in reference to establishing one's identity
in the  community, through social intercourse, and by contributing to human
culture, I don't see much point in discussing the obvious.  Aside from the
fact that we're engaging each other in a constructive discussion, I don't
see the social aspects of man's being as relevant to the primary
metaphysical ontology we're attempting to nail down here.

> 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.

Again, I'm not denying that we learn from others, or that we need language
to communicate, etc., but this is not what I mean by negating otherness to
objectify being.  I think it's important that we recognize that the
epistemology of individual experience has a parallel in the primary negation
that actualizes differentiated existence.

> 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.

We certainly should be cognizant of the fact that life is limited and leads
to death, a truth that can "guide" us toward making the most out of life.
However, I don't know what you mean by "it should ...serve to negate
perception."  How does realizing the inevitability of death negate
perception?   On the contrary, people who claim to have had "near death
experiences" report that it heightens sense perception.

> 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.

Okay.

I also said:
> 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?

You replied:
> 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 you're equating Essence with DQ, and have followed my discussion with
Reiner, you should know that we attribute only the primary negation (i.e.,
Difference or Otherness) to Essence.  The perception of finite things and
events (differentiated beingness) results from our negation.  Perceptions do
not negate.  We negate (otherness) to perceive.

I also asked:
> Where does the form of the image come from?

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

"Comes through knowledge" does not answer Where or How.  What is the
"reality" that cultural knowledge is based upon?  What causes planets to be
round, grass to be green, animals to be mobile, matter to be gaseous, liquid
and solid?  What do you see as the universal template or design for this
differentiated system?

> 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.

I'm with you, Dan.  But then why does Pirsig expend so much time and space
talking about the Intellectual "level" and how various cultures have evolved
to achieve it?   Look at this passage, for example:

"What keeps the world from reverting to the Neanderthal with each generation
is the continuing, ongoing mythos, transformed into logos but still mythos,
the huge body of common knowledge that unites our minds as cells are united
in the body of man. To feel that one is not so united, that one can accept
or discard this mythos as one pleases, is not to understand what the mythos
is."  (Pirsig, ZMM)

Last August, David Morey said:
> I see intellect of a certain 'flavour' when the cosmos
> is moving towards higher forms of consciousness, i.e.
> 'adding together' all that has been differentiated.  But
> what about the ealier phases of differentiation, do
> we ascribe to this a movement towards higher level
> awareness?  Is there not a process of retreat into the
> focus of awareness that we call the individual?

When MoQ people speak of Intellect as the cosmos moving toward higher forms
of consciousness, which is quite frequent around here, one has to wonder
whether it's a misinterpretation of Pirsig's philosophy or the
interpretation that people like myself get. Maybe it's the "aspiring
anthropologist" in Pirsig that makes him pass over the individual and
portray Intellect as a cultural or evolutionary wellspring that man somehow
learns to "focus" on.  Whatever the case, I don't see intellect as anything
but the application of reason to experience by the individual human being.
If humans were to disappear from the face of the earth, there would be no
intellect.  If you don't accept that, you're putting Intellect into some
celestial realm.

I guess the LILA story you quoted to me is supposed to contain some profound
truth about Quality.  I'm afraid I have to side with Rigel in this dialogue.
The repartee is effective when work your way through the "punch lines", but
what does it tell us? ...

> 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.
[snip]
> The author still didn't answer.
[snip]
> "There are answers," the author finally said,
> "but I don't think I can give them all to you this
> morning."
[snip]
> "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)

We may all know what Quality is; but most of us wouldn't think of it as a
universal source.

 Dan comments:

> A "universal source of things" sounds suspiciously
> like a creation hypothesis on my end.

It sounds on my end as if Phaedrus had better come up with one soon!

> 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...

The "notions" I have expounded in my philosophy of Essence are hardly what
one would call "preconceived".  In fact, they are still very much in
progress.

Appreciate your interest.

Best regards,
Ham