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

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Chin --

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

The apologies should be on my side.  I've been trying to keep up with the
attacks and confusion produced by some of my comments.  I have read your
posts, and the major reason I haven't responded is that I find myself in
general agreement with your assertions, despite that fact they are arrived
at by a different route.

> 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. ...

I don't see what Nothingness has to do with the uncertainly principle of
quantum physics.  The fact that man cannot empirically determine the
velocity or mass of a micro phenomenon does not implicate nothingness. It
simply means that we cannot describe the qualitative aspects of the
phenomenon at a given instant of time.  Science has pushed the frontiers of
observation so far beyond human sensibility that events can only be
quantified in terms of statistical data.

> 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.

I don't really understand the point you are trying to make, and how it
relates to a theory of nothingness.

> 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’?

Please refresh my mind.  What is the MOQ view of No-thing?

Regarding some of the comments you made previously ...

> Am I mistaken, or does Pirsig not see Quality in
> place of a supreme being? I’m not ready to make
> any statements in this nature other than it seems
> to me Quality works as well as God, Nothingness,
> The One, Atman, &c. The small self, big Self,
> Atman/atman, could fit into Contemplative
> Christianity as well as Quantum Physics, and it
> would seem to me Christianity evolves as
> understandings change, at least to some extent ...

All of these speculations and comparisons presuppose material substance as
the fundamental reality.  If Western Religion or Eastern Mysticism are
bending to the latest theories of physicists, it suggests that they are
diluting their beliefs with objectivist ideology and are in a worse state
than I had imagined.

Also, you said:
> May I offer the idea that Human individuals are
> capable of being autonomous, but in the current
> moment are mechanistic by nature.
> By mechanistic, I would mean they satisfy their
> primordial instincts of survival, imitate through
> education, experience and interaction between
> others than which they are.
>
> To be autonomous may mean to be connected to
> the Value or Quality of the universe and independent
> of culture, religion and politics, to the false sense of
> reality which different cultures have developed.

Human individuals are autonomous and free by their (metaphysical) nature,
although they are not necessarily cognizant of this fact.  We are the true
"choicemakers" of our world; we select the values by which we act and are
limited only by finitude and the operating principles of Nature.  The
survival instinct is innate in all living creaures.  In addition, human
beings are free to organize, explore, create, change society,
design/invent/build new things, develop original concepts, manipulate and
control the environment, and discover the pleasures and joys of the universe
in accordance with their chosen values.

What has hampered this freedom in recent decades is ignorance, apathy,
subservience to religious doctrine, and obsession with technological
innovation, materialistic distractions, infatuation with the "celebrity"
life-style and the "humanistic" ideals of egalitarianism which are
destroying the ability to discriminate and maintain the moral values of a
civilized society.

I like your perspective, Chin, and find your views most refreshing.

Thanks,
Ham