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

[Ham Priday]

Hi Chin --

> 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  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.

Okay -- Heraclitus in the 5th century BC taught that everything was some
combination of earth, air, fire and water.  "Ether" (a cousin of the word
"etherial") was thought to fill the upper regions of space at about the time
radio-telegraphy was invented.  You can forget about such unscientific
speculations.  They have nothing to do with Essence or Nothingness as I
define these terms.

> 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?

The problem I'm having with your dissertation is that you're mixing the
metaphors of one philosophy (or religion) with another.  You're also
confusing metaphysical theory with scientific empiricism.  I don't think one
can understand or explain philosophy by criss-crossing between a variety of
belief systems and taking the terms out of context.  I've found the best way
to learn is what a philosophy is really about is to study one at a time.

> 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.

Now you're taking a Buddhist concept and applying it to the MoQ.  I doubt
that Pirsig would urge his followers to "reach the real Self", whether or
not his philosophy is "similar" to mystical teachings.

> 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.

We all have our prejudices and different personalities.  But that's a
psychological description, not a metaphysical definition of the "self".
Frankly, I don't know if I've reached my "Buddha Nature", since I don't
acknowledge that I have one.  The Scientific approach to learning is
empirical and evolutionary.  Scientists must adapt to new facts about the
universe as they discover them; they can't allow themselves to be "stuck in
Galilean physics" if they expect to master Quantum physics.  Philosophy, on
the other hand, is intuitive and individual; its concepts "evolve" only
insofar as its authors are influenced by scientific theory.

> 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.

This is meaningless to me, Chin.  Goodness is a moral concept of the
individual or his culture, and is relative to the conditions one is
evaluating or judging.  Man's concept of Truth must also be flexible enough
to accommodate new facts or ideas.  I don't see the logic of equating Truth
with Goodness.

> 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.

Again, you're trying to analyze philosophy as if it was a progressive
accumulation of knowledge, which it isn't.  We don't learn about the
physical universe through philosophy or religion.  That's the function of
Science and Technology.  Attempting to reconcile a diversity of
philosophical theories into a single belief system isn't feasible.  What you
end up doing is a lot of useless research "classifying" and comparing the
various ideas, which is "what Pirsig called Philosophology".

[snip]

> 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."
> . . . 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.

First of all, I'm not trying to redefine Existentialism, which is pure
Objectivism.  It holds that Existence is prior to Essence.  Essentialism is
the reverse of this premise: Essence is the primary, uncreated reality. The
fact that, from your perspective, Nothingness "sounds like" Essence does not
make them equivalent.  Essence is absolute potentiality; Nothingness is its
absolute antithesis.  They have "nothing" in common -- literally and
metaphysically.  These two opposites would oppose each other, except that
Essence negates Nothingness, creating a dichotomy grounded in Nothingness
which is a Not-other to Essence.  That Not-other is the "appearance of
being", the self/other dichotomy that we call Existence.  You are the "not-"
of this dichotomy; "other" is the being that is your object.

> 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.”

There is no "out there" or "in here", except for the experiential illusion
of space/time reality.  I've explained what I think, and I prefer to look at
it "my way", if that's OK by you ;o)

Thanks for the analysis.

-- Ham