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

[Heather Perella]

    [Ham]
> I thought I'd presented a very clear concept.  But
> since I seem to have
> confounded both of you, let me try to clarify the
> confusion.

     Thanks.  It's funny.  I can only take so much of
what you have to say, at times.  During those times I
just seem to hit road blocks in the discussion and a
rest must occur.  As for now, the conversation is
stimulating.

     [Ham]
> 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).

     Here's that long-standing difficult notion -
nothingness.  Where is this nothingness?  I only talk
of this quietness, for me, this is the only
nothingness that I'm able to notice that might come
close to relating and thus, understanding what this
nothingness you speak of.

 
     [Ham]
> The point I'm trying to make is that empirical
> (relative) nothingness -- the
> space that separates experienced objects cannot be
> absolute.

     The space that separates experienced objects?  I
understand how it cannot be absolute, since there are
objects included in this picture, but as to this
space?

     [Ham]
  This is the
> nothingness we encounter (but do not directly
> experience) in existence.

     We encounter but do not experience?  Doesn't
encounter imply experience?

     [Ham]
> I'm not talking about quality but about Truth. 
> Please hear me out.

    I'm trying.

     [Ham]
> 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??

     I guess you're saying there is only two
choices here?  I"m not so sure about that.  If I'm
not getting what these two are, 
exactly, then would not my beliefs not fit exactly
into these two belief systems?  Or, just because I'm
not getting it, doesn't mean I've unknowingly chosen
one or the other.  
     I'm wondering, since I believe in a mysterious
notion,
such as Case's example of Job and how
Shit happens or Shit isn't happening, a
trickster notion, a notion of lucky hit or miss, but
at the same time I'm not undermining my own free will.
Where does this belief of mine fit in?  I think I have
a
good explanation later on in this post.

 
> [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.

     [Ham] 
> Try to focus on what I said.  (I didn't even mention
> experience.)

     I'm trying, but your and my assumptions are in
these gaps, I believe.  So we thread this out with
discussion.

     [Ham]
  I'll try
> to simplify it.

     Please do.  I've got this tiny skull you know.

     [Ham]
  We can NOT KNOW the truth about
> ultimate reality.

     Mysterious notion I mentioned, ok, got cha.

     [Ham]
> Therefore, we have a choice.  We can either believe
> that ultimate reality is
> Nothingness -- which is to deny an ultimate reality

     Ooooooh, I'm gettin' ya here.


     [Ham]
> or we can believe that
> it is Absolute -- which is to believe in a primary
> source (i.e., Oneness,
> Essence, Being, or God).

     Here's been a set-back for me all along.  
How are these two belief systems separated, especially
if I
don't know ultimate reality and don't believe reality 
is ultimate.  Also, I believe in G-d, Oneness,
etc..., but also, I don't believe this notion of G-d,
Oneness has a baseline, ultimate reality.  For me, an
ultimate reality is a notion that 'All can be wrapped
up in some defining principle.'  As Marsha mentioned,
the ultimate reality changes and thus, 
is not based upon any FINAL notion at all.  This is
included with my belief as to how can there be an
underlying principle, but yet I believe in G-d.
Not only are there changes, but the
ultimate reality is nothingness. Yet, I
still believe in a oneness/G-d, but this
ultimate reality that is G-d, Oneness, etc... is not
ultimate, or baseline, etc...  I would describe it as
nothingness or quietness.  Thus, G-d always
changes and is not 'being' ultimate, yet, how can I
speak of 'something' that is ultimately 'everything',
as 
I do with sureness, but still incorporate a mysterious
notion?
I'll explain.  It's not a notion of skepticism that I
have.
It's not a notion that I can't decide or choose.
It's a notion that is not accepting the
concept that G-d is somehow ultimate.  Does that mean
something is more ultimate than G-d?  No.  What it
means is G-d, not just my understanding of G-d, but
G-d doesn't come to some ultimate conclusion as to
what reality is - ultimate, baseline reality.  This
is not just because I don't know what this ultimate
reality is, I'm also saying that reality can't be
constrained by some ultimate baseline.  Ultimate
reality/G-d/nature is creative.  It's not just me not
knowing everything.
It is me experiencing a reality that is not fully
defined.
Reality itself doesn't have an ultimate Way.  That's
why I can't
accept the two choices your giving.  I'm seeing
reality is ultimately nothingness named G-d, thus, G-d
has no ultimate baseline reality.  This mystery notion
I'm experiencing is not just me.  It is reality, too.

     [Ham]
> The proof is in the pudding, not in my conclusions;
> but your taste buds
> don'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?  

     I'm not getting into which creatures have
value sensibility or not, right now.  I'm staying 
focused upon the trees.  Trees are not just empirical.
I'm talking about trees tied up in an event
that has definition, but also in an ultimate reality
that has mystery.  
     I not only experience the quiet of the
woods.  My mind, my thoughts, are totally influenced
by this quietness that has nothing ultimate to provide
in the way of a baseline principle.  This quietness is
so deep,
it's a hole that has no bottom.  This quietness is of
ultimate
reality.

     [Ham]
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.

     That "can't discover the ultimate source of their
existence" is reality passing through our minds
stating its' very bottomless nature, plainly
ingraining(ed) itself in the deepest sense and
identity of this place in our experience.

     [Ham] 
> Reflect on it, folks.  It's really not all that
> complicated.


     Mu.  Your two belief systems are limiting the
choices
of what reality is.  It's not that I'm not
comprehending
you, at this moment, it's the assumptions that 
you have, thus, your structuring of your comments
constricts my perception, thus, I didn't comprehend.  
I do now see where your coming from, and I have
shown you where I'm not fitting into your pigeon-
hole two belief system, at least I've tried to.
     What I've stated about my belief is so
quiet that you've got to put your thoughts aside
and listen attentively.  The woods provide
an opening to this deep quiet, and so
I directly experience this quiet with these trees
and streams.  Loud roaring waterfalls, such as Niagara
Falls, also blow my mind away and I'm struck and
opened to a clear experience and notion that I can
even cultivate thoughts upon to convey.  This
experience is not just sensible, but comes from inside
the mind, too.    

Thanks,
SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com