[MD] The MOQ difference

[Ham Priday]

G'day Mark --


> Hi Ham,
> Thanks for that.  It is slightly clear, but only out of the corner
> of my eye.  It seems more like an equation than anything else,
> everything which is not zero (not trying to diminish).
>
> As we stretch the math in physics such nothingness appears
> everywhere.  We have concepts such as the square root of
> negative one (i), which cannot exist, but bridges the gaps
> between that which does, much is the same way as a
> quantum jump.  I suppose we can bring in parallel universes
> and such, but I digress.
>
> Now, to get back to the forum and try to harmonize.  In its
> essence, the negation of Nothingness may arise as Quality
> (or Value to the subjective mind); or am I wrong?  It is not
> inherent in things or patterns yet delimits them.  Our
> fundamental contact with such Quality is at the point level,
> or, as Pirsig would say, at the pre-intellectual level.  However,
> our contact must also be at every other level including the
> intellectual.  As we distill and grow bored, our contact only
> becomes the map, and not the terrain.  As much as we try to
> redraw the map, it is never more than that.  Is this close?

The points you make about nothingness are valid, although I sense that they 
don't add up to a concept you can get a grip on.  I think that's because 
there are many ways to describe nothingness as a differentiating principle. 
I particularly like your chacterization of Value as "not inherent in things 
or patterns."  It would certainly please Pirsig.  However, I believe 
"delimitation" is not Value per se but the affect of our own nothingness 
"penetrating the essent" (Sartre's euphemism) to objectify specific 
phenomena.

Applying Occam's razor and expressing this ontogeny as a simple chronology, 
it almost comes down to Eckhart's analogy of absolute [Essence] "overflowing 
itself", much like the photon energy given off secondarily from a nuclear 
explosion.  This overflow dissociates what we recognize as primary 
attributes of Essence; namely, "sensibility" and "beingness".  The 
sensibility (awareness) is existential nothingness [negate], while the 
beingness [essent] represents the "substance" of Essence deprived of its 
sensibility.

What holds this dichotomy irretrievably together is the essential attraction 
(Value) between them.  And, because Value is also essential, it bears the 
stamp of the Grand Design, which makes our individual delimitation 
(secondary negation) of objects conform to a universal system or pattern.

> Now, I have read Eckhart (no not that impostor Tolle,
> but the one W. James introduced me to years ago), and his
> descriptions are that of a mystical experience, not a thought
> out logic.  Not to say that such words can not transfer the
> experience to others.  All I can say is keep at it, something's
> got to click into place.

I've owned a highly readable paperback anthology of this gnostic (translated 
from the German by Raymond Blakney) since the '50s and still refer to it 
frequently.  "Meister Eckhart", Harper Torchbooks (c)1949, is a real gem and 
should be available in some new printing.  If you can find it, it's well 
worth adding to your library.

> This post is just myself thinking out loud, it really has
> no other purpose.

I have found that thinking out loud -- better yet, noting it down -- is the 
best approach to philosophical conceptualizing.  Then you can post it to 
your friends who will freely offer advice as to what's wrong with it.  Some 
of them may even be right, in which case you come out ahead more swiftly.

Cheers,
Ham