[MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics

[John Carl]

Andre,

Prey tell, what is your understanding of 'nothingness' (in Buddhism) and
> what is 'truth'(in radical empiricism)?
>
>
Pray tell, Andre, how much  does your creative misspelling reveal about YOUR
agenda,  but to skip that for now and just answer your question about
nothingness in Buddhism,  I followed the video that Marsha posted pretty
well.  I wasn't struck by anything new or revelatory, but a good quality
re-telling of a story I've heard before.  Nothingness to Buddha is the same
as nothingness is to you or me or the man on the street - not much, if
anything.

Radical Empiricism, I'm a bit hazy on.  You should ask that question of
those interested in that framework.  I'm not enough of a philosopher to
understand Rad. Emp. and it's relation to Existentialism, to be able to give
the trumpet that certain sound.  You should probably ask dmb about RE.
That's more his bag, eh?

My understanding of Truth I related to Marsha just recently, but since you
offer that you haven't been following along, I'll be glad to repeat it for
you:


 it's the rules of the game for the structure of all 4th level evolution.
Truth is DQ to the intellectual level.  And Keats formulation, Truth=Beauty
rings true in that "intellect" includes both the classic and romantic ways
of knowing.  In a philosophical sense, it's a subjective Ideal by which we
come to understanding.



> I think you need to be clear on these two concepts before you burden Marsha
> with meditating on them.
>


Well, I feel pretty clear on them.  I've certainly made myself as clear as I
can.  If there's any question or confusion, I'm always open to follow-up
questioning and furthur dialogue.  After all, is that not why we are here?



> Trying to follow Marsha's frame of mind it sounds like an eternal
> condemnation into reified and at the
> same time relativized sq....she'll go nuts!!
>
> Tell me John, is this your true hidden agenda in all this?...get rid of the
> bitch!
>
>

Ok, first off Andre, "hidden"?  I mean really.  Most of the criticism I've
endured has been for the opposite of hiding myself.  I'm too open, I'm too
out there.  Spewing my personal garbage all over these pages.  What about me
seems hidden?  I have an overt agenda - pursuit of the Truth.  Philosophy in
the grand style, with many viewpoints and different input into this thing
called "the MoQ" - which I am devoted to, whole-heartedly. I appreciate
diversity and I wouldn't exclude anyone - even dmb, who has wanted to
exclude me from almost day one!

I posted my raison d'etre once, plainly and simply with no room for doubt: I
called the post, "Last page of Lila, Why I am here".  That's the best
explanation I can think of to explain "my agenda".  Here, to save you the
trouble of searching the archives I'll repeat the salient point:

"When the Indians used good, they meant it as the center of existence and
that Dusenberry, in his nature, was an embodiment or incarnation of this
center of life.

Maybe when Phaedrus got this metaphysics all put together people would see
that the value-centered reality it described wasn't just a wild thesis off
into some new direction but was a connecting link to the center ofthemselves."