[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

[Ham Priday]

On 6 Sep 2009 at 12:36, Platt Holden wrote (to Ham):

>> We cannot transport ourselves from an objective,
>> relational world to metaphysical 'Oneness' by intellect,
>> faith, or some mystic Sutra.  The division is existentially
>> insurmountable.

> Must disagree, Ham. The "division" is surmountable in many ways.
> My personal preference is to "surmount" division of I-Other through
> contemplation of beauty. Others prefer meditation. Others "get lost"
> in their work. (Some hippie-types recommend drugs, but not me.)
> I'm sure you have experienced your "I" ceasing to exist, if only
> at brief moments.

Surely you're not suggesting that contemplating the Mona Lisa or enjoying a 
Rachmaninov symphony is the equivalent of a "spiritual transformation".  We 
all occasionally "get lost" in our work (or play), but as with all 
experience this is the self participating in an objective world.  The mystic 
claims that suppressing ego and desire will produce an altered state of 
consciousness in which Oneness consumes him.  Apart from "visions of God" 
reportedly experienced by a few devout Christians, most western 
"truth-seekers" are content to absorb themselves in scripture or poetry for 
that "transcendental awakening".  We may change our values through such 
contemplation, but we can't change our human condition as a finite being 
aware of otherness.

>> Nothingness has no value to us.  Yet, there's no escaping it.
>> Every finite thing is defined by nothingness; every change or
>> difference experienced in time and space ... is a transitional
>> or relational condition involving nothingness.

> Seems you have discovered the value of 0. Or, the value of
> white space in watercolor painting. That aside, perhaps this
> quote from Pirsig about "nothingness" is worth pondering:
>
> "The problem here is with the term, "absolute." It has been used by
> Western philosophers for years to describe the central reality of
> mysticism. "The Absolute" means the same as "Dynamic Quality" and
> the "nothingness" of Buddhism, but  it's a poor term because of its
> connotations. To me it connotes something cold, dead, empty of content
> and rigid.  The term, "Dynamic Quality," has opposite connotations.  It
> suggests warmth, life, fullness and flexibility.  They are the same, but
> when the term, "Absolute," is dropped, the problem mentioned here
> goes away.  Dynamic Quality is not dominated by context but it is not
> separate from context either." (Note 91, Lila's Child)

Pirsig has a "problem" with the term that that best defines ultimate 
reality, so he substitutes another term that is even more problematic.  By 
what justification does he
conclude that Quality is absolute?  Quality is a human measure of worth or 
excellence.  If there is such a thing as "absolute worth or excellence", we 
can't measure it, so why not stay with the term "used by Western 
philosophers for years to describe the central reality of mysticism"?   At 
least we know what it means.  And it doesn't mean "nothingness" -- even to 
the Buddhists, who understand it as a state of "no-thingness" (the very 
antithesis of nothing).  Meister Eckhart described the Divine One as 
"absolute fullness of being".  Pirsig doesn't like "absolute" because it 
"connotes something cold, dead, empty of content and rigid."  But just 
because Dynamic Quality has a "warmer, livelier" connotation doesn't make it 
a proper description for the primary source.  Obviously words mean more to 
him than concepts.

>> Metaphysically Value is indivisible, contains no nothingness,
>> and is inextricably one with ultimate reality (Essence).

> So it seems you and Pirsig are on the same page although the
> vocabulary is different.

Platt, I don't quibble over someone's vocabulary or word choice, as long as 
it isn't misleading.  Not only are the terms misleading, I don't see myself 
on the same page with Pirsig conceptually.  For one thing, "quality" is a 
relative human precept, with or without the cap 'Q', and no human precept is 
absolute, much less the source of created existence.  Moreover, "dynamic" 
applies only to relational systems in which change occurs.  Biological 
evolution is a dynamic process, for example; but a relational process 
logically cannot be primary.  The ultimate source must transcend difference 
and process.

>> I maintain that existence is relational because of the nothingness
>> that divides it.

> Zero divided by zero is still zero.
> But, probably irrelevant to your claim.

More relevant to my "claim" is that the integer '1' divided by zero is 
ambiguous.  The
fact that division by zero is undefined is fundamental to the mathematics of 
real numbers which applies to a relational system.  However, if we're 
talking about a non-relational source, who is to say that unity divided by 
nothingness is not infinity?

>> The fact that nothingness is primary to difference in
>> cognitive awareness logically infers that it originates with
>> the experiencing self.  By that, I mean that each individual
>> "injects" its own nothingness into its objective "other",
>> thereby bringing Value into being as a relativistic world.

> You lost me. I would say each individual intrinsically
> acknowledges the existence of nothingness from direct,
> preintellectual, nonrelativistic experience. We intrinsically
> know that something else is going on even while we
> focus on what we find of interest at the moment.

That sounds like Kant's theory of "pure reason".

> I think the MOQ recognizes and supports the two
> different realities, the mystic and the pragmatic.

It's not clear to me, Platt.  From all I have seen, the MoQ thesis never 
moves beyond the evolutionary reality of change and process.

> We recognize, Ham, as you do, the paradox of our existence.
> We are always separate from one another, but never apart.
> That's a given.

I'll take your word on it, although I would express that concept as: "We are 
all one in Essence."

Cheers,

Ham