[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[118]

Hey Ham,
Thanks for the insight.  I do not think I am skeptical in the sense that I
am clinging to static representations that negate yours.  If I am at all, it
is just to increase my understanding.  I am not sure what part of the post I
am responding to, so I will leave it below for others and hope that it gets
through the hub.

The use of a microscope opens up new worlds.  Sometimes it is difficult to
make inferences of the whole with such a microscope unless one has an
appreciation for what one is looking into.  As such, inference can be more
difficult than deduction, since one never knows if enough information has
been gathered.  Focussing on the source of negation is indeed such a
microscopic approach.  You do present a good description of the difference
between the absolute, and our interpretation of it.  Negation is the process
for such differentiation.  As I see it, while such differentiation arises
from the absolute, the process for doing so must exist separately and draw
something out.  This kind of spark cannot arise on its own, but must be set,
to provide the fire.  This form of a negational node implies a window (or
release valve) which exists, not one that is created.

I appreciate the distinction between your ontology and Quality in that the
latter suggests direction.  This is also one of my stumbling blocks with
Quality, which comes from an appreciation of Taoism.  However, the ever
changing appearance of things does suggest some kind of direction.  I
suppose this is why religion is so powerful.  There seems to be intent of
some kind.  If we delve into the nature of that intent we break it up
statically and look backwards for beginning.  If we accept intent without
initiation then a creator is not necessary.  I believe you would subscribe
to this latter statement.  However, the act of negation does imply a
beginning which does subscribe to creation, so I am left hanging.  The
circular nature of reality as described in Vedic thought, that is repetitive
creation and destruction also requires an act of some sort, that is Brahma,
and Shiva.  Of course lets not forget Vishnu which creates Static Quality
(my interpretation, of course, which will probably change dynamically).  I
am a big fan of Kali, which is considered devil worship by some, and
ultimate reality by others.  I believe that Kali would represent Nothingness
and potential somethingness in your ontology.

In the beginning, of our selves, is what I am questioning.  If we couple
that with the subjective notion of self, it is difficult to imagine that
such a thing came from nowhere.  It is not intuitively obvious no matter how
many words are used.  There is something not right and forced in that
interpretation.  Perhaps something nihilistic, I don't know.

Cheers,
Mark

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> Hey Mark --
>
>
>
>  Yup, still with you.  I got distracted by some nonsense on another post,
>> but now I'm back and in tune.  Let me just say that I like your ontology
>> in terms of the pictures it provides me.  I seem to get stuck at places
>> where there is a jump.  Where the actual point of negation occurs is one
>> such place.  But, I am asking questions that haven't been successfully
>> answered to my satisfaction yet, so perhaps the question is the wrong
>> approach.  I do have a tendency to obsess.  Sometimes a good thing
>> sometimes not.
>>
>
> OK, you are hung up on the question of exactly where negation occurs.  Let
> me try to explain why I regard Differentiation as the negation of an
> Absolute the Source.
>
> If you accept the idea that pluralistic "existents" (i.e., the perceived
> objects of existence) are the creation of a monolithic source, then it is
> apparent that Difference is the primary operand of existence.  By this I
> mean that since everything in existence is divided or polarized -- including
> the apperception of self and other, before and after, here and there, good
> and bad, life and death, being and nothing, static and dynamic, etc. -- what
> we call existence is a differential aspect or mode of the Creator.  I think
> what you're asking is: What STARTS this differentiating process?   How do we
> get from an absolute unity to a pluralistic universe?
>
> Many solutions have been suggested in this forum, the most popular (based
> on the MoQ) being that DQ gives rise to "patterns of Quality" (the static
> existents), while Quality itself is a unity ever moving to "betterness".
> Some hold out for the theory that there is no primary source, that the
> universe simply emerges from chaos or nothingness.  Others have adopted the
> New Age theory that our world is just one of "multiple universes" that have
> always existed with no need of a Creator.
>
> All of these theories, including mine, are flawed for various reasons.  I
> have posited an absolute source that is both undivided (not-other) and
> unchanging (immutable).  This ontogeny doesn't have the "dynamic" advantage
> of Pirsig's Quality which allows for its division into patterns to account
> for creation.  To resolve the paradox of an immutable source performing acts
> of creation, I make the Source (uncreated Essence) primary and relegate "the
> acts" of creation to Nothingness (the created negate).  Think of negation as
> the cleavage in an infinite ball.
>
> In my ontogeny Essence doesn't have to "create" anything; it only has to
> possess a "negational mode" as its potentiality to actualize Nothingness and
> create Difference.  Expressed as a logical premise: Essence creates Nothing;
> (Nothing is created by Essence.)  Now, I know dmb and others will accuse me
> of simply playing with words in order to make sense out of nonsense.  But
> hold your skepticism for a moment.
>
> Nothingness has all the attributes of Essence.  It also is absolute,
> unchanging, and indivisible.  Essence and Nothingness are the two primary
> metaphysical antonyms, except that the former IS and the latter IS NOT.  The
> only way the Not-other can create Other is by exclusion, denial, or
> negation.  Notice that creation is this context is not an act "exercised" in
> time and space by Essence but, rather, the very mode of its absolute
> potentiality.  In other words, Essence is "negational".
>
> In Eckhart's terms, IS-ness negates Nothingness.  And from that negation
> Difference and its concomitant appearance of Existence is born.
>
> I'll get to your other comments later, Mark.  But does the above
> explication draw a clearer picture of the "where the actual point of
> negation occurs"? Is my ontogeny logical by your standards?  If so, I would
> say we're making progress.
>
> Copacetically,
> 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/md/archives.html
>