[MD] Nihilism

[Laird Bedore]

Hi SA,

Nihilism is described so many ways by so many people, and I'm never 
really satisfied with any of the definitions. I've got a sense of what 
it means to me, but it's always hard to convey it to others. I think the 
big problem behind understanding the term is understanding 
"nothingness", so let's play with that for a bit.

I believe Pirsig talked a bit about nothingness in one of the books, but 
I can't think exactly of where. Western thinkers seem to have a really 
hard time seeing nothingness in the same way as Eastern thinkers.

Examples:
I think Ham spoke of nothingness as the space between distinguishable 
things. An easterner would laugh at that sort of definition, because the 
space between distinguishable things is itself distinct... it is 
SOMEthing, maybe not tangible, but still measurable. It's still something.
Or try thinking about ones and zeros in a computer. One is something. 
Zero is something too. To get close to the concept of nothing, you've 
got to turn off the computer and think about what it's like for a 
computer to try operating without either its ones or its zeros (and 
succeed). There's a brain teaser!
Or think about a huge vacuum out somewhere in space. It's still far from 
being "nothing" - there's the concept of "space" giving it dimensions 
where we say there's "nothing inside", but those dimensions are a 
measurable distinction! Its dimensionality allows for the possibility of 
interaction with other things, like a little pebble or light. To not 
have the possibility of interaction with something, it must not exist at 
all.
Even a black hole isn't nothingness - they are just massive energy 
transformers that convert "stuff" into absurd amounts of x-rays, emitted 
from their poles. All of our experienced universe is something 
interacting with something else, so it's conceptually torturous to try 
to wrap our heads around some genuine nothing!

"Nothing" is thoroughly and completely separate from the idea of "no" or 
"not" - The absence or negate of something is itself something. It is 
closer to the idea of Mu - "wrong inputs", "un-ask the question", 
"irrelevant", etc. It hurts my head just trying to explain it! 
"Absolutely Undifferentiated" is about as close to my mind's take on 
Nothing as I can muster, but it still misses the mark.

With the idea of nothing sort-of established (hah!), I define nihilism 
simply as the belief that fundamental reality arises of absolute 
nothingness. All the encyclopedia definitions I read feel like 
ramifications of this one simple definition. They're defining the 
symptoms, not the cause. That sort of thing.

All that being said, I loved Gav's ideas! A little nihilism does help 
burn the underbrush (question the mythos), leaving room for a 
"beginner's mind" in such pursuits as the MD. I find nihilism to be 
fundamentally unmaintainable. His last paragraph illuminates the 
nihilists' misunderstanding their own "nothing" and points to the 
unmaintainability of their position (thanks to poor assumptions).

-Laird

Heather Perella wrote:
> Gav and Marsha,
>
>      I also have tried to understand this term.  I
> believe I know what it means according to Ham, but I'm
> not understanding how what I'm about to say can be
> contrived to mean nihilism.  Maybe I've got Pirsig's
> MOQ all wrong, but this is how I view some of his
> metaphysics.  I'd appreciate any collabration to clear
> up any misleadings as to how I've decided what Pirsig
> means.
>      I don't believe in nihilism, but do believe in
> nothingness.  I know Pirsig uses levels, but I have
> always understood those levels to be quality.  When I
> think of quality I perceive an undifferentiated
> universe, a primary reality that has no distinctions. 
> One can perceive levels, but these levels overlap. 
> These levels can even overlap to the point where no
> levels exist at all.  Have I been understanding
> Pirsig's levels?  His levels can become concrete
> discretion or overlapping non-distinctions.  How these
> levels can go back and forth between these two
> unseemingly extreme perceptions is due to static
> patterns and dynamic quality being one in the same,
> essentially, known as quality?  Does this make sense? 
> These non-distinctions is nothingness and as Gav
> stated the no-thingness actually provides an even
> clearer perception of a moral universe.  I would say
> that nothingness also provides clarity to things, too.
>  I'm not quite understanding how nihilism is implied
> in all of what I've said either.
>
>      Maybe we can scoot each other along in
> understanding nihilism, and have some help from
> others, too.
>
> Thanks,
> SA
>