[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[David M]

Hi SA

This is good, it says what is creative and dynamic about tao or DQ.
But I think I can add a little something to it. Let's consider a poem.
I write some words:

The bird in my tree
Will pay me no......

Well how to end my poem?

I could or could not rhyme it.
I may end it with one or many words.
We are faced with a wealth of possibilities.
What will become actual, I am limited by my
own imaginative limits but here goes:

The bird in my tree
Will pay me no fee.

Kind of challenges the notion of my tree ownership.
But what has happened by this creativity.Well DQ
or god has withdrawn, the possibilities that were given
to me have been replaced by what I have chosen.

This reflects my connection to the infinite possibilities
of DQ/god, tao, whatever you prefer, as a gift and my
free ability to select just one of these gifts to make actual.
I may make very bad choices or good ones.

And so the whole cosmos is such a journey through
the possible, a particular path, that we help to determine,
a journey towards a heaven or a hell that we are helping
to make.

regards
David M




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Heather Perella" <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The differentiating nothingness


> 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 
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>