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

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

Hi Ham,
The “Whole Thing” I read was all the replies in both the thread and 
subject. I may have gotten myself a bit confused trying to relate to 
all that was said. I’ll just stick to this reply, and read the rest 
later. Ether and Aether was not a who, but words used to describe what 
is “Out there” in the 19th century, meaning the atmosphere beyond 
earth’s, and it was one of Aristotle’s 5 elements. One definition of 
Essence goes back to Ether and Aether. The other definition, or use 
was in more modern Buddhism where 

What I was saying is that Nothingness Theory is not the same as 
Nothingness used in Zen. If you are considering Existentialism, then 
what you are calling Essence is more closely tied to Buddhism, and not 
Ether or Aether. Existentialism, as I understand it, is closely tied 
to Nothingness of Zen, but would it not also be identifiable with DQ? 

In Eastern practices, you must strip away the false identities of self 
in order to reach the real Self, or similar in the different 
teachings. This concept is close to MOQ in that in order to experience 
or accept DQ, you must be willing to let go of SQ. 

What we are is layers of personalities, or SQ, or predetermined 
prejudices built in us by the SQ. If you think of someone who is 
Closed-minded, then you would see a person who has not reached their 
Buddha Nature, or denies DQ until it has worked its way down to SQ. 
You could think of someone who is stuck in 
Cartesian/Galilean/Newtonian physics. Relativity or Quantum Physics 
would be too difficult to understand, so they just simply accept what 
they know, and for them this would be Truth. 

In Nothingness, the Good (in Western terms) would be higher than 
Truth, so if you reach the Truth, you have also reached The Good. The 
only difference I would see with MOQ, if I understand it correctly, is 
there would be no difference between Truth, or DQ, and Good. DQ would 
be Truth and The Good. 

Existentialism as well as many other philosophies would be the DQ of 
their time, and are now built into the SQ of MOQ through man’s 
consumption of these philosophies, both what might be considered right 
or wrong, and what might be considered wrong in one point in time, can 
be worked back in as DQ when new information surfaces. 

Acceptance of, or leaning toward and particular philosophies would be 
what Pirsig called Philosophology? 

In Zen practice, as best as I have gathered, Nothingness would simply 
mean there is no permanent DQ, but would this not also be true of  
Existentialism? There would be no Absolute Nothingness in Zen any more 
than there would be Absolute DQ in MOQ, and of course this would be my 
understanding, current understanding, which in no way should be 
considered Absolute, or empirical. 

If I understand Otherness in Existentialism it would simply be “Out 
there.” In Zen as well as the MOQ, there is nothing “Out there.” 

This you wrote;
“Essentialism (my version) holds that Essence is the Source or Creator 
of
existence, and that "creation" is a constant negation of otherness. (I 
do
not regard it as having a "beginning" or an "end" but, rather, as a
continuous process from the finite perspective of man.”
 . . . sounds much like Nothingness to me. It would not be “creation,” 
but what might be called “Expansion and contraction in a balance,” 
something like the Big Bang or Black Hole theories. 

The only difference would be in the word you use, Nothingness, 
Quality, Essence are all the same except in terminology -- a word used 
to point toward something. As Nothingness, Quality and/or Essence 
evolved, DQ would decide what stayed in the definitions, explanations, 
or even terminology.  

The difference in Nothingness, of course, would be that you do not 
claim to know what this is, and unless I am mistaken, I don’t think 
Pirsig or anyone here claims to know where Dynamic Quality comes from, 
but it is not something “Out there.” But, if you want to look at it in 
this way, SQ negates itself to make room for DQ - “Nihilism.” ;o)

Sorry, couldn’t resist the little pun.  

What you think?

Chin

----- Original Message -----
From: Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:44 pm
Subject: Re: [MD] tiny skull... change... nothingness...
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

> 
> Hey, Chin (Ron) --
> 
> Wow!  You've thrown a lot of ideas at me, and I'm not sure I 
> follow your
> thoughts throughout.  (You were clearer in your previous posts.)
> 
> When you say, you "have read the whole thing," do you mean the 
> last post, my
> on-line thesis, Kaup's Nothingness Theory, or the synopsis I just 
> sent to
> David?
> 
> Who is "Ether or Aether" of the 19th Century, and what is meant by 
> "I see a
> statement that we can 'know the creator'"?
> 
> Are you referring to Essentialism when you say:
> > 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. [?]
> 
> You also talk a lot about Creation, but your conclusions confuse me:
> > 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.
> 
> I know very little about Zen or Taoism, but from what you say, Zen 
> is not a
> creationist philosophy.  Then you ask:
> > Is your Essence an attempt to explain the creation
> > of the universe?
> 
> Essentialism (my version) holds that Essence is the Source or 
> Creator of
> existence, and that "creation" is a constant negation of 
> otherness.  (I do
> not regard it as having a "beginning" or an "end" but, rather, as a
> continuous process from the finite perspective of man.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Yes, Essentialism is based on my synthesis of concepts by theological
> scholars, visionaries, and Christian mystics of the past, as well 
> as some
> contemporary cosmologists, which are by and large Western ideas.  
> I reserve
> the term Essence for the One Primary Source.  If man has a "soul", 
> it would
> be his value complement rather than Essence.
> 
> > 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[ness], the universe
> > is also capable of conscious.
> 
> Since I believe we ourselves create the order and specificity of the
> universe ("Man is the measure, etc.) it may be considered conscious.
> However, this does not mean that "things" themselves are conscious.
> (You might want to read my note to David today, which outlines my 
> Creationhypothesis.)  For example, I see "things" as what remains 
> of pure Beingness
> when we have extracted their value for ourselves.
> 
> > I will not carry this further now, as it would not
> > have to do with Nothingness, and I think this needs
> > to be settled in our minds first.
> 
> In order to settle this issue, I suggest that we 
distinguish "relative
> nothingness" which separates objects and events in existence from 
> "absolutenothingness" which is the antithesis of Absolute Essence.
> 
> In my thesis, it is absolute nothingness that is negated from 
> Essence to
> produce the self/other dichotomy.  Essentially we are "nothings" 
> (negates)with a sensibility to Value that makes us aware of 
> Essence as an Other to
> us, and it is we who (intellectually) divide this otherness into 
> discreteobjects and events in space/time.
> 
> Appreciate your interest, Chin.  And thanks for clarifying your 
> name and
> prior association with MD.
> 
> Best regards,
> 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/
>