[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Scott Roberts]

Peter, and Ham, Reinier, David M, SA,

Peter said:
That reminds of the time I tried to convince someone that their belief in
heaven was ridiculous; I first asked him if he believed  there will be
chairs and stuff in heaven, he looked puzzled and started referring to
something in the Bible, eventually he gave a hesitant 'Yes. I then asked him
if he would have a handle on those things in heaven. The conversation then
went off at a tangent.

Scott:
There are chairs in dreams. If one survives death perhaps one might dream up 
a chair for one's dream body to sit in while trying to figure out what in 
hell (or heaven, or neither) is going on. But of more philosophical 
interest, let's get back to selves and physical chairs.

Peter said:
Does everyone agree that consciousness necessarily implies the conception of
self? But there is no perception of self.  Self is the focal summary of the
perceived other, be that other flesh and blood or  tables and chairs.  I
think  for my friend if he believes his sense of  self will continue in
heaven then his heaven can only be in a time and place just like this world.

Scott:
Here's a passage from Merrell-Wolff (Experience and Philosophy, p 327-8) 
that seems relevant to this thread. In fact, except that FM-W puts 
Consciousness as Primeval, rather than Essence, it isn't much different from 
Ham's thesis, as I understand it.

"Opposed to consciousness as the only existence, there stands the counter 
notion of voidness. In this sense the void is a somewhat that is not, that 
has no substance [he is using 'substance' in the Spinozan sense, as that 
which depends on nothing else]. Now, without voids there would be nothing 
within the Primeval Plenum of Consciousness to arouse self-consciousness 
into action. The voids may be regarded as zones of tension wherein 
consciousness negates itself and thus blanks itself out in greater or less 
degree. Such voids have the value of disturbance as acting like an irritant 
that tends to arouse consciousness to an awareness of itself. It is an 
instance of *absence* arousing the the power to be aware of *presence*. 
Here, then, we have a basis afforded for interpreting evolutionary 
development. Instead of that development being a means whereby consciousness 
is finally evolved out of the mechanical processes of dead nature, we have a 
progressive unfoldment of self-consciousness within a matrix of Primary 
Consciousness. The play and interplay of voids, instead of atoms of an 
external and dead matter, are the background of the universe of objects. The 
voids arouse attention within consciousness simply because of their 
pain-value. The focusing power aroused by attention in time becomes 
self-consciousness, or the power to aware of consciousness. The multiform 
combinations of the voids produce all the configurations of experience and 
thought, and these in turn have the value of symbols, which in the last 
analysis are of instrumental value only. The symbols indicate a pre-existent 
and formless Meaning. When, for any individual center of consciousness, the 
Meaning can be assimilated directly without the instrumentality of the 
symbols, then for that individual the evolution of self-consciousness within 
the field of consciousness of objects has been completed. But until that 
time, symbols are necessary."

Note, Ham, where he says these voids (like chairs) are symbols. This is what 
I mean when I say everything is semiotic -- a claim you have objected to. 
And, Peter, you asked what I mean by enlightenment. This provides a partial 
answer. I say partial because FM-W describes two stages of enlightenment, 
and what he says here mainly just applies to the first (which he calls the 
Nirvanic state). The second state is when one Realizes that Nirvana (a 
complete absence of objects/voids) and the Universe (which he defines as the 
totality of possible objects) are no different.

- Scott