[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: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:58:57 -0500
>
>
>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.

Hi Ham

I understand. Still, writing 2 novels qualifies as trying in my opinion.

>
>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.

In that case I would say you're in danger of missing the forest for the 
trees.

>
> > 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.

The Creator, in other words? I don't think so.

>
> > 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.

You seem to be generalizing quite a bit here. It would of course depend upon 
the circumstances and the person. What you may be referring to is perhap the 
shallow end of death. Now, speaking from experience, I cannot report any 
heightened sense awareness. It was just a normal day. I remember being at 
work and being aggravated about something stupid and then I grabbed hold of 
an electrified metal ladder and death was smiling in my face.

It didn't hurt but suddenly I couldn't let go; my heart seized up tight in 
my chest like a giant black hand gripped it. As "I" watched, like a detached 
witness, all intellectual patterns began breaking down to reveal a dark 
underneath, a void, nothing, just in the corners at first, around the edges, 
then more insistent. No explanation suffices. Had I gone farther, well, we 
wouldn't be talking now. I only caught a glimpse but... there is nothing 
there when we die. Nothing. Not down deep. Still, what is there to fear? 
Nothing!

A worker nearby saw what was happening and hit me in the shoulder with a 2x4 
to knock me loose. My shoulder still hurts when the weather is about to 
change and they said my lips were blue when I got up off the floor but 
otherwise I survived intact. I saw something that day. I saw how it all 
falls apart. And when you see how it falls apart, you begin to see how it's 
put together. Perception I mean. The way we construct the world. How we are 
held in place. Suspended. On the brink of an abyss so vast there are no 
words.

Does that answer your question?

>
>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 am equating perception with Dynamic Quality. It seems to me you are using 
"perception" in a different context than I am. I like the definition I find 
in THE OXFORD COMPANION TO PHILOSOPHY: "The extraction and use of 
information about one's environment (exteroception) and one's own body 
(proprioception)." Perceiving is not the things perceived, however, which is 
how you seem to use the term.

>
>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 see intellectual patterns of value as the template and design. You seem to 
indicate that the "world" is really "out there" waiting to be discovered. I 
should think the MOQ would say that is a high quality idea, nothing more. We 
are (all of us) submerged in culture. Culture tells us that grass is green 
and planets are round, animals are mobile and matter gaseous, liquid, and 
solid (not to mention the fourth state, plasma). So, I answered your 
question quite satisfactorily as far as Where and How... do you see?

>
> > 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)

Culture, in other words.

>
>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.

There are no MOQ people, or Essence people. There are only people. That 
aside, the MOQ does not say intellect is the cosmos moving towards higher 
forms of consciousness. In fact, the MOQ states that intellect often times 
obscures and gets in the way of higher consciousness. The MOQ states that 
the historic purpose of the intellect is to survive.

>
>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.

Why doesn't that surprise me? :) Ham, why do you think I picked that 
particular quote to share with you? Oh ho ho ho... You are really too 
much...

>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.

Exactly! You did get it! Oh but I am pleased!

>
>  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!

Well, okay. So I spoke too 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.

Well, I wasn't talking about that but if the shoe fits...

>
>Appreciate your interest.

And I yours.

Thank you for your reply,

Dan