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

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

Hi Ham,

This is going to take some time to work out, but I’m willing if you 
are. 

> 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?

Ham -- 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.  

Chin -- How can you say it is “out of context,” and “confusing 
metaphysical theory with scientific empiricism?” What is metaphysical 
theory, and scientific empiricism? Are you saying this as a 
philosopher, scientist, Buddhist or Christian, or combination? How 
would Nothingness as used in Zen Buddhism differ from Quantum physics? 

Ham cont. -- I've found the best way
to learn is what a philosophy is really about is to study one at a 
time.

Chin – But, when you study philosophies one at a time, you leave 
yourself open to the DQ of the one philosophy as opposed to the DQ of 
all philosophies, something like a Freshman in college trying to 
impress his senior classmates, but each knows exactly where and why he 
is where he is. They had all been there before. 

> 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.

Ham -- 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 is the “real Self” other than the Quality self? Would Zen 
Buddhism be a  “mystical teaching” in the East, or would “Mystical” be 
a word we have branded it with in the West from a lack of 
understanding? Would this lack of understanding come from SOM?  You 
know he did study Zen. 

> 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.

Ham -- 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.

Chin -- Would science and religion not just be a branch of philosophy? 
When you read the stories of those such as Galileo, Newton and 
Einstein, how often do you read or hear the word intuition? Did they 
look through a telescope or microscope and say “Hey there’s gravity!” 
or “Hey! There’s General Relativity!”? Did gravity go hide somewhere? 

And, our spiritual, psychological and intellectual nature is no more 
than SQ, or layers of imitative poetry stacked upon imitative poetry 
to the point our real nature is not visible to us. Pirsig mentioned 
Self-reflection. I think if we could each observe our small self as it 
really is, and how it became what it has become, we would be surprised 
at the influences on our being that has nothing to do with true 
spirituality or intellect, maybe as Pirsig pointed to the fact the 
insane were left alone to work out their own problems. Maybe self 
reflection is all we need to bring ourselves up to Quality or the 
Buddha or Jesus nature. Maybe it is all psychology, and maybe just 
self observation of our shallow psychology would be enough to bring us 
to our real Self or Quality self, in that we would see that we have 
not concerned ourselves with the Real personality called ‘Me’, but 
have become nothing but little imitative or mirror images of what we 
think others would think we should b
e, or what others are. 

> 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.

Ham -- 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.

Chin – In the concept of Essence, would Goodness not be the highest 
order? Would a search for the truth not reveal The Good, as The Good 
is higher than the Truth? Does the culture not put false morals on us, 
such as gays, blacks and Easterners are at a lower level? – such as in 
the Church of Reverend Moon? Or the one I am more familiar with, the 
wearing of jewelry is a sin? – beating a child is more acceptable that 
taking a peek at a good looking woman? (Sorry ladies) I’ll stop there, 
but I’m sure you could think of quite a few more examples of moral 
values that don’t make sense. Would cultural (religious) moral values 
actually come anywhere close to the real Good, or Truth? 

> 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.

Ham -- 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".

Chin -- So your saying that your philosophy could not benefit from the 
study of prior philosophical beliefs? – modern philosophy did not 
build on prior philosophies, and philosophy does not improve as it 
evolves? (The same would be said of religion, unless there are really 
religions around that still believe in the Flat Earth) 

> 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.

Ham -- 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.

Chin -- Oh yeah? My Dad can whip your Dad! ;)

But seriously though, how can anything negate Nothingness? And just 
the fact that Essentialism is your “version” of essence would mean it 
is not pure Objectivism – it is of your mind. And, two ways of looking 
at it makes it subjective. 

> 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.”

Ham -- 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)

Chin -- If there is nothing “out thee” in your view of Essence, the 
Essence would be even closer to Quality and Nothingness. 

I wouldn’t try to tell you how to look at anything. It is through 
dialect we learn. Wouldn’t any real metaphysics need to include people 
and how they relate to each other though, as well as how they relate 
to the universe, or not, if you prefer. 

This to me, is the strength of MOQ. 

BTW, I may not be able to reply tomorrow. Weekends were made for 
Michelob. Friday is a good start to the weekend. 

Chin