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

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

Hi Ham,

I can’t believe I have read the whole thing. I have read ahead to all 
that has been said, and I ‘Think’ your term for Essence goes beyond 
that which fits in with the Buddhist religions influenced by Indian 
Christianity, and beyond that of Ether or Aether of the 19th century 
to describe space, or that of Aristotle as the Fifth Element, but what 
I see is a statement that “We can know” the creator or creation of the 
universe. I think maybe this is the difference between Nothingness and 
Essence, but I couldn’t begin to explain Nothingness as used in Zen 
Buddhism before the influence of Christianity, other than to say 
Nothingness in Zen might mean “We do not know,” creation, or an end or 
beginning can not be identified, or even ourselves. 

I don’t think it is the same as Nothingness Theory, which I think you 
could keep searching and find others who do not offer even the same 
theory as the author you pointed to. I have.   

Per Zen Buddhism, the universe cannot be said to have been created, 
nor have a beginning or an end, which does not agree with the theory 
the universe was created at all. 

Is your Essence an attempt to explain the creation of the universe? If 
so, I think this would explain the Christian influence in the more 
modern Buddhist beliefs which placed the Buddha as a deity. Zen 
Buddhism does not offer an answer, but only a means for searching. 

I think Essence is more a Western way of looking at things. Not saying 
this is good or bad, but just maybe incomplete, or premature. Essence 
in more modern Buddhism could be translated loosely as meaning soul. 

When I say Conscious Universe, it is a simple conclusion that if we 
are only a small part of the whole, and we are capable of conscious, 
the universe is also capable of conscious. 

I will not carry this further now, as it would not have to do with 
Nothingness, and I think this needs be settled in our minds first. 

Does that make any sense?

BTW, I am not Chinese, but have been accused of speaking Chin-ese ;), 
Chin is just a play on my last name, Winchester, which became 
Chinwhisker, which was shortened to Chin. First name is Ron, which has 
evidently quit showing up in my emails for whatever reason this time 
around. I have been using Chinwhisker as a knick-name for years. 

Chin

----- Original Message -----
From: Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
Date: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:40 pm
Subject: Re: [MD] tiny skull... change... nothingness...
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

> 
> Hi Chin --
> 
> You were on MD some time ago, am I correct?  (I recall some 
> enlighteningcomments from you in the past, but had trouble 
> associating your name with
> Phaedrus-Wolff.  If I'm not being too nosy, I would assume that 
> you are of
> Chinese ancestry.  Do you reside in the U.S.?
> 
> I had asked how the uncertainly principle quantum physics related 
> to our
> notion of Nothingess.
> 
> 
> > It would not be “velocity and mass” that I would think
> > pointed toward the validity of nothingness, but that the
> > protons and neutrons are sometimes a particle and
> > sometimes a wave, which would not point toward solid
> > matter. On top of that you have to consider the size of
> > the protons and neutrons. Consider you blew up the
> > proton to the size of a grain of sand on the beach.
> > In this analogy the atom would be the beach. What
> > everything is made up of, blown up to scale which we
> > could measure it is vast space.
> 
> In my on-line thesis, I pointed out that there is vastly more 
> nothingnessthan matter in the so-called "physical world" of 
> subjective experience, and
> infinitely more in the theoretical world of quantum physics.  I 
> cited an
> estimate by Australian astronomer John Peacock that the universe 
> has a
> density of "next to nothing": he described it as "about 300 x 
> 10[27th] times
> less dense than water, or one ten-thousandth of an ounce in a 
> volume the
> same size as the Earth."  I commented that because nothingness 
> cannot be
> experienced, it has no value for man: he is oblivious to it, and 
> insteadperceives reality as beingness.
> 
> I think this may be the point you've illustrated in the 
> enlargement of an
> atom to the size of a beach and the "expanded bridge".  The 
> problem I have
> with sizing analogies is that everything in the universe is 
> relative except
> the size of the universe itself.  Some cosmologists consider it 
> finite,others say it's infinite.  Also, I should think that as we 
> "technologicallyexpand" micro particles/waves to even larger 
> sizes, we will find even
> smaller constituents, which may refute your premise.
> 
> > There would be nothing distinctive of our make up,
> > other than probability patterns, memory or what might
> > be called the cosmic dance.
> 
> This sounds a bit like the Orientalist Alan Watts who wrote a book 
> (whileunder the influence of LSD) called "The Joyous Cosmology".  
> I have no
> problem with the notion that nothingness is the ground of 
> existence, since I
> believe that what we experience as existence is the 
> intellectualization of
> the mind (also nothingness).
> 
> What troubles me is the inability or unwillingness of intelligent 
> people to
> see beyond this illusion, this cosmic dance, and realize that it 
> must have a
> more "substantive" source and purpose.  For me, the source is 
> Essence and
> the purpose of existence is to make being aware of Value.  Man 
> fulfills that
> purpose daily, yet he is largely ignorant of this fact.  And the
> philosophers have not demonstrated much more wisdom.
> 
> > The use of “No-thing” would be from an explanation
> > that was offered me sometime back from someone here
> > I may very easily misrepresent. But, if you think about a
> > concrete thing, everything is either in space or time, and
> > space and time are not concrete, so there is no concrete
> > thing. The MOQ gets around this in that there is value
> > in everything -- everything is Quality, either SQ or DQ.
> 
> Ham - 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 ...
> >
> > I would have to admit that it would be speculation
> > on my part, as there is no way other than possibly
> > predetermined prejudices on my part, or maybe a
> > lack of need to delineate, or qualify an eternal
> > principle, but to see the similarities of each. Eastern
> > Mysticism, spirituality or religions have no need to
> > bend, and Quantum Mechanics is only bringing
> > (IMHO) physics up to the Ancient Teachings. I doubt
> > Western religions have even considered Quantum
> > Physics, as theology in the West is currently taught as
> > opposed to contemplated (as far as I can see from
> > the traditional churches). I do see some advances in that
> > at least the Catholics are observing the universe, and
> > Easterners are joining in the churches and creating their
> > own Christian churches.
> 
> I can't speak for Eastern Mysticism, but I would not expect the 
> Church to
> adopt Quantum Mechanics for any reason.  Regious faith is not 
> based on
> Science, nor should it be.  At the same time, I don't think 
> Science will
> ever learn all the answers, because it is founded on objectivism 
which
> dismisses the subjective half of the dichotomy.  If intuitive 
> reasoning and
> logic can encompass the physical world of appearances, it is 
> Philosophy that
> holds the key to cosmological understanding.
> 
> [Ham, previously]:
> > 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.  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.
> 
> [Chin]:
> > We are in agreement here, except I would think more
> > than 99.9% “Human individuals” sleep through life
> > making only those choices that have been programmed
> > into them by society, culture, religion, education, with
> > only an illusion of actual choice making. The choice
> > making may be more based on what others would think
> > of them or maybe what they see others do. ...
> 
> Couldn't agree with you more.  We have traded common sense and
> discriminative judgment for celebrity worship and the playthings of
> technology.  Western Society has lost connection to its core values.
> 
> > . . . And I might add ego, violence, and perversion
> > beyond what we could attribute to animalistic instinct.
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts. I am neither for or against
> > Nothingness, as I offered prior, the word is only to
> > point toward something.  Quality works fine, and
> > probably works as well for those who contemplate or
> > self-reflect, maybe better than it does not need the
> > qualification Nothingness does.
> 
> I think Quality is a weak substitute for Essence, but I also I 
> don't think
> either term signifies Nothingness.  What I can't understand is why 
> you,Case, and a few others here insist that Nothingness is the 
> ultimate reality,
> yet claim that you are not nihilists.  Perhaps you can explain 
> this to me.
> 
> Great to chat with you again, Chin
> 
> --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/
>