[MD] tiny skull... change... nothingness...

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

Ham -- What is so difficult about Pascal's wager? He's saying
that if we believe in a transcendent God, we have everything to gain 
and
nothing to lose; conversely, if we believe in nothing, we have nothing 
to
gain and everything to lose.

Chin -- Nothingness is not nothing, but ‘No-thing’, such as in Quantum 
Physics, a particle would be a discrete unit of matter with consistent 
characteristics unless divided or fused, which we know the particle is 
sometimes a particle and sometimes a wave, which at least to my more 
simple way of looking at things supports Nothingness Theory. 

Nothingness Theory would point to the idea that there can be no limit 
to size, Macro or Micro. The only limit to size we could come close to 
would be the observable universe both large and small, meaning we 
would have observed all galaxies, or the end of the universe in the 
Macro, and we would have reached the limits in the Micro by stating 
protons and neutrons are solid matter, and made up of a definable 
matter. 

At the time of Pacal’s wager, as well as most earlier philosophies, 
there was nothing wrong with his wager. We have just advanced in some 
circles past the idea of nothing, to maybe something like the MOQ view 
of ‘No-thing’?

Like I said earlier, if this is an interruption without value, let me 
know and I’ll stop. 

I am also understanding it is quite possible you are not getting my 
emails, or they could be extremely delayed, so nothing emotional here, 
just politeness. 

Chin 

----- Original Message -----
From: Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
Date: Sunday, November 12, 2006 11:26 am
Subject: Re: [MD] tiny skull... change... nothingness...
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

> 
> Hi SA and Marsha --
> 
> I thought I'd presented a very clear concept.  But since I seem to 
> haveconfounded both of you, let me try to clarify the confusion.
> 
> [Ham]:
> > So long as we are observing beingness (i.e., things in
> > motion) we are applying nothingness to it.
> 
> [SA]:
> > By nothingness, since this word can have more
> > than one definition, I'm thinking you mean 'it' is
> > something defined by us, but with loose ends, thus,
> > not fully definable.  A?
> 
> Nothingness can have only one meaning: the absence of things.  
> "It" in the
> above sentence refers to "beingness".  Finite things appear when 
> we apply
> nothingness to undifferentiated otherness (beingness).
> 
> [Ham]:
> > Any system that includes or is grounded in nothingness
> > cannot be absolute.
> > HOWEVER -- Pure Nothingness is Absolute.  And it is
> > possible to theorize a finite universe derived from
> > absolute nothingness, as about half of the cosmologists
> > have done.  Why do I open myself up to this can of worms?
> 
> [SA]
> > The can of worms being that you've contradicted
> > yourself.  "Nothingness cannot be absolute... HOWEVER
> > -- Pure Nothingness is Absolute..."  I'm sure you're
> > trying to make a point here, a good point, too, but
> > you've jumped to a contradiction.
> 
> The point I'm trying to make is that empirical (relative) 
> nothingness -- the
> space that separates experienced objects cannot be absolute.  This 
> is the
> nothingness we encounter (but do not directly experience) in 
> existence.PURE (non-relative) nothingness, on the other hand, is a 
> "hypothetical"absolute.  And many cosmologies are based on the 
> notion that existence
> emerges from absolute nothingness.  Indeed, Essentialism holds 
> that absolute
> nothingness is negated by Essence to create the subject/object 
> dichotomy.
> [Skipping the quietness SA hears when he walks in the woods, etc.]
> 
> [Ham]:
> > Absolute Truth is absolutely inaccessible to finite
> > cognizance. From an existential (infinitesimal) perspective
> > Truth is an enigma.
> 
> [SA]
> > Nothing new here, again.  This is dynamic quality.
> > This is quality.  This is static quality, since static
> > quality has patterns, definable patterns, and yet
> > those definable patterns will always have this loose
> > end dangling that just quite can't be summed up and
> > defined completely.
> 
> I'm not talking about quality but about Truth.  Please hear me out.
> 
> > As a consequence, one is free to accept or reject
> > the concept of an Absolute Essence.  Either choice
> > must be made on the basis of intuitive reasoning
> > rather than empirical evidence.  You may regard
> > this principle as a coincidence of Nature, but it is
> > a metaphysical fact of existence that insures the
> > autonomy of the Choicemaker.  Ultimate reality is
> > either Absolute Essence or absolute Nothingness.
> > And the value of philosophy hangs on that choice.
> 
> [SA]
> > What would absolute essence or absolute nothingness
> > state so differently from each other?  I don't think
> > that everything is absolutely nothing, since I can
> > touch a tree and find value in that tree.  I could say
> > the tree is nothing, and I can say the tree is
> > something.  What's it matter how I view the tree from
> > one moment to next?  It seems my mind can't locked
> > into an answer on this.  I'm leaning towards what
> > Marsha said about change.  All these absolutes need
> > refreshed and my mind cleared.  To stick with either
> > one is to ignore the value that the other might be
> > suggesting.
> 
> Again, I'm not talking about trees or their values relative to 
> each other.
> I'm talking about the choice between a belief system based on 
Absolute
> Nothingness versus Absolute Essence.  You say there is no 
difference??
> 
> [Ham]:
> > Since it appears that cosmological truth is denied
> > us absolutely, life may be viewed as a gamble in
> > which the individual is free to choose.  As Pascal
> > said: "Let us weigh the gain and loss in choosing
> > 'heads' that God is.  Let us weigh the two cases:
> > if you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose
> > nothing.  Wager then unhesitatingly that He is."
> 
> [SA]:
> > Sure I can choose which reality I want to
> > experience, and I don't know all, so, whatever I
> > choose there's always that one tiny little
> > understanding - I don't know all, and the world is not
> > only human logos.
> 
> Try to focus on what I said.  (I didn't even mention experience.)  
> I'll try
> to simplify it.  We can NOT KNOW the truth about ultimate reality.
> Therefore, we have a choice.  We can either believe that ultimate 
> reality is
> Nothingness -- which is to deny an ultimate reality, or we can 
> believe that
> it is Absolute -- which is to believe in a primary source (i.e., 
> Oneness,Essence, Being, or God).  In the theistic language of 
> Pascal, the winning
> bet is that God is.  What is so difficult about Pascal's wager?  
> He's saying
> that if we believe in a transcendent God, we have everything to 
> gain and
> nothing to lose; conversely, if we believe in nothing, we have 
> nothing to
> gain and everything to lose.
> 
> [Ham]:
> > This, my dear friends, is metaphysical proof that
> > "man is the measure of all things".
> 
> [SA]:
> > Oh, how you love to jump to conclusions thinking
> > you've solved it all.  Are you sitting somewhere
> > thinking or rejoicing - I've solved it!  Ha, ha, ha,
> > that would be funny, since you even talk of finitude.
> 
> The proof is in the pudding, not in my conclusions; but your taste 
> budsdon't seem to be working.  You say you observe trees and find 
> value in
> seeing and touching them.  That's taking the measure of their 
> value, isn't
> it?  You even identify them by species and can tell me how they 
> germinate.What other creature besides man has such value 
> sensibility?  Yet, we can't
> see beyond their appearance in our minds; we can't know their real 
> essence.We can measure all kinds of phenomena, but we can't 
> discover the ultimate
> source of their existence.
> 
> Reflect on it, folks.  It's really not all that complicated.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ham
> 
> 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/
>