[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Heather Perella]

Hello Ham and all,

     Ham asked Dan Glover:  "Do you care to offer some
theories that might be applied to a Creation
hypothesis, mine or Pirsig's?"
> 
> His response was to quote that encounter between
> Phaedrus and Rigel where
> the author implies that he knows something (about
> Quality as a universal
> source) that Rigel is too dense to understand. 
> Since the author does not
> explain his concept, the reader can only infer that
> if he doesn't understand
> what Phaedrus is hinting at, he's no smarter than
> Rigel.
> 
> Dan's comment at the end of the quote was:
> 
> > "A "universal source of things" sounds
> suspiciously
> >  like a creation hypothesis on my end."
> 
> Since the assertion "Quality, on which there is
> complete agreement, is a
> universal source of things," is neither a Creation
> hypothesis nor an
> empirical truth, I replied:
> > It sounds on my end as if Phaedrus
> > had better come up with one soon!"

> You said:
> > Ham, since quality is with reality, as Phaedrus
> > would explain, because quality cannot be taken
> away
> > from reality here and now, then Essence being as
> you
> > say a source of all (and still debate how it fits
> with
> > all) would have to include something as general
> and
> > ordinary to life as quality.
> 
> If we're talking about existence, lots of things are
> "with reality" -- 
> matter, change, consciousness, time, space, beauty,
> love, goodness, evil,
> life, and love, for instance.  I don't see "quality"
> standing out as that
> much more significant than any of these.  It can
> "seem" to, of course, when
> an author writes a book that defines everything as
> quality.  Religious
> writers often would have their readers believe that
> everything is "good"
> because God is good.  What do you see as the
> distinction here?  (At least
> the believers aren't afraid to connect their
> "goodness" with a primary
> source.)

     Sure there are lots of 'things' with reality,
yet, could you take quality away from being attached
to any one 'thing' amidst reality?  Maybe quality is
not alone in being able to describe and fit with
everything in reality.  Consciousness is another
concept that fits with everything, yet, does it
emanate from everything as well?  Maybe, it would be
difficult to say rocks have consciousness, yet, how
would we be able to detach the realm of consciousness
from anything we come to know since consciousness is
always present in order for us to become knowledgeable
about anything?  Quality seems to be similar to this
kind of understanding.  Quality cannot be detached
from anything in reality, thus, quality is everywhere
in reality (beingness or existence).  Yet, its'
undefine-ability found in DQ patterns where creativity
sprouts is where existence comes into being.  DQ is
actualization of something that wasn't and now is. 
This type of description of actualization I would say
mirrors your negation or differentiation of Essence. 
Could we go any further into understanding how DQ does
what it does or how something is negated (Essence is
negated)?  I am leaning towards no, because things
negated would be as far as our intellect would take
us.  Existence is as far as our intellect goes.  To
actually know something before or while it is negating
would not be appearing, knowable, and definable.  I
think we would notice that something is undefined and
we would notice we cannot grasp onto this 'place'
where something seems to be, yet, is not solid in its'
define-ability.  Why would I say this?  I think we are
able to think as far as existence goes, but any
dabbling we endeavour away from any kind of existence
would be as hitting 'the wall of the void'.  Look at
somebody that is dead.  We know they are dead.  We
know they are not existing, yet, what is this realm of
death or non-existence that we are referring to?  I
don't think we could intellectualize what it is. 
Crossing over this realm with our intellect goes as
far as noticing no more existence, yet, I don't think
our intellect could go as far as actually seeing the
process of negation or defining the process of
negation itself taking place.  Using your thesis I
think we would see differentiation, but not how it
differentiated, that would involve ourselves, our
intellect, moving from Essence to negation, which we
can't while being in existence.
         

> You further say:
> > Since, much is inquired and even learned in the
> > comparisons of what certain things mean and relate
> to
> > each other, such as, what is nothingness, what is
> > differentiation, why must negate be happening, why
> > this and this and this, these do turn up fruitful
> > ideas, but the same basic principles are unknown
> and
> > still questioned.
> [snip]
> > [P]eople after all these thousands of
> > years still argue, question, and have different
> > meanings and definitions of what God is, thus,
> > I would say God is out of the reach of intellect,
> > too.  Take this with a grain of salt or take this
> > as what I still see as the unending try to define
> > some things with life that cannot be defined.
> 
> Yes, that is true.  We cannot have absolute
> knowledge.  Theories are not
> "facts", and will always be debated.  But as I've
> said before, it is the
> philosopher's obligation to provide an ontology for
> his theory, particularly
> when he claims it is a new concept of reality. 
> Simply saying that Quality
> is a universal source of things because "there is
> complete agreement" about
> it may be an opinion or a notion, but it is not a
> philosophical thesis.
> (Actually, the current world situation makes it
> painfully clear that there
> isn't universal agreement about what Quality is.) 
> And when that same author
> claims to be making a contribution to man's
> understanding of "morality" with
> the premise "some things are better than others", he
> isn't living up to his
> claims, in my opinion.
> 
> What I'm trying to do with Essentialism is to posit
> a metaphysical theory of
> reality drawn from the logic of theological
> scholars, philosophers, and
> contemporary thinkers, focusing on the role of man
> as a free agent and the
> value that is his existential reality.  It's only a
> hypothesis, and I may
> not have it right; but unless we're able to see a
> connection between the
> individual self and the absolute source, life has no
> essential meaning.

     Personally I don't see the difference between an
act of creation from some absolute source and DQ or
negation or just realizing something that I know I
didn't realize before.  These are creative acts coming
from somewhere or being somewhere that wasn't here and
now is here.  Yet, to try to solidify, define the act
of creation, and/or connect with intellect, the
individual self and this absolute source allows for no
'room' for any creative act to keep taking place. 
Once defined then nothing else is to be known about
'it' (the creative act), yet, this is contrary to what
a creative act is.  A creative act, as long as this
world continues to exist, is something that keeps
happening and to think we can pin-point its' process
intellectually and come to some kind of conclusion
about how it is happening is to no more have something
else creativity act.  Why could not something be known
and still continue to creativity act?  Well, in this
case of the universe and its' continual, generalized
creative acts happening all over the place to know of
it (the generalized creative act [your negation])
dismisses it from continually happening.  Our knowing
is tied to this continuum of creative acting
(negation), and thus, once creative acts are totally
known, then anymore knowing about anything would stop
and cease to occur.  If, once we realized and knew how
something is truly created (at its' source - I do
believe in God), then all would be known.  I don't
think we can know all and I think creativity will
still occur in its' undefined, unknown, and then here
it is the painting or universe seen as it is, yet,
that 'is' still being replenished creatively with more
to be known, creatively made and so forth.  To have
anything creative or creatively made, is to point-out
acts that where not here and are now here; and we call
that act - creative.  You have a piece of paper and
now something is on that piece of paper.  To always
know what would be on that piece of paper before it
ever appears on that piece of paper is to define
anything in the act of being created, but it does not
happen this way for us.  Our intellect does not know
what will come out of or how the creative act will
become what it eventually does become.  We wait until
the painting or story is over, put an ending for
endings sake, until the next time we paint or write
another story and the creative act will be all anew
and different for us, because of its' indefinably
creative acts stay what they are - creative.

      This is why I see DQ, God, Essence, the act of
writing, and painting, the sun rising in the morning,
and protons all being the same - once I keep going as
in trying to figure them out (all the why's, what's,
and where's of them), I find the defining of them to
be continual and unending because something is linked
to them all that is continual, unending, and
creatively happening with them over and over again,
anew each time it happens.     

SA  

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