[MD] MOQ: Treatment of Opposites

[Ham Priday]

On 29 Aug 2009 at 3:57 PM "markhsmit" <markhsmit at aol.com> wrote:


> I do not claim to be well read in the subject of MOQ,
> and I post this as a means of obtaining opinions. Recently,
> I read a post which suggested we exist somewhere in the
> middle of opposites. That is on a continuum between good
> and evil, pain and pleasure, up and down and so forth.
> This is a common theme in Taoism. The Yin and the Yang.
> While these may not necessarily be considered to be
> opposites, they certainly co-sustain each other in an active
> way. DQ and SQ are these opposites or do they interplay
> in a way similar to Yin and Yang?
>
> The question is how does MOQ deal with the concept of
> opposites?

It doesn't.  Pirsig has avoided metaphysical explanations.  However, let me 
suggest an answer based on my own ontogeny.  It's only a hypothesis, but 
please give it some consideration and let me know if it seems plausible.  (I 
hestitate to use the word "logical", since classical logic applies only to 
relational systems.)

My premise is that the "opposite" (antithesis) of any existing thing is 
nothing.  This is inductive reasoning from the principle that existence 
itself is a being/nothing duality. In my ontology an object, entity or 
particular being is actualized by nothingness.  This doesn't make 
nothingness an "active agent" but, rather, a contingency of experience which 
IS the "creator".  Moreover, it's the only ontology I'm aware of that makes 
beingness no more "real" than nothingness.  Why is this significant? 
Because existence is the world of finite appearances, whereas Reality is 
neither being nor nothing but absolute Essence -- that which "is" as 
"not-other".

My "logic" is that Difference is required for things to exist.  Since 
Essence is absolute and undivided, Difference can arise only by the negation 
of Essence.  My hypothesis is that, from the human perspective, Essence is 
"negational"; that is to say, it negates the antipodal nothingness 
(anti-essence) to create Difference and the "otherness" that constitutes the 
cognizant subject's objective experience.

> I would state that anything without an opposite exists.
> This brought me to my question, what is the opposite
> of a chair? Marsha has suggested (I think) that a chair
> is defined by its opposite. While I can understand this
> in terms of the presence of a chair (its opposite being
> its absence), I can't grasp this for the chair itself.

Okay, now compare your analysis of Marsha's suggestion with my ontogeny 
above.  Can you grasp my "duality" theory any better than her "opposites" 
theory?

In the 15th century, Cusanus surmised that the "first principle" (God) 
transcends all opposition.  He envisioned it as the opposite of contrariety, 
and defined it as the Not-other, leaving "otherness" (finitude) as the 
experienced "reduction" of what is infinite or absolute.  Existence is a 
relational system of things and events divided by nothingness.  Without 
nothingness a thing could not exist (appear to be).  Hence, the reasoning 
for a negated nothngness that makes existence possible.

Does this make any sense to you, Will?  I'd really like to know what you 
think.

Essentially yours,
Ham