[MD] What's Emptiness?

[118]

Hi David,

You have captured the notion of emptiness is some way below.  As I have said
in previous posts, the term "Emptiness" is not very useful unless one
understands its meaning.  In fact, the notion of Emptiness often leads one
in the wrong direction.  Emptiness does not mean that things such as reality
do not exist.  It means that such things do not exist of themselves.  For a
cup to be empty, both the cup and the space within must exist together.  One
cannot have an empty cup without the cup.  One cannot have an empty cup if
it is full.

This is the concept of co-dependent arising, yin and yang if you wish.  In
Buddhism this concept is extended to the personal mind.  There is no
inherent existence (existing on its own) of the self.  In this way the mind
is described as Empty.  As I have posted recently,  applying the notion of
Emptiness to ones participation in this world, has tremendous results:
selfless compassion for all sentient beings.  So, if nothing else it can
result in societal harmony.

To provide opinion towards your last statement on essence of the mind, one
could say that there it has no essence on its own.  Again, obviously the
mind does exist (as we define it), but only as a composite of arisings
outside of it.  And of course these arisings are composites themselves, and
so on.  One big cluster #@&*! as Marsha likes to say.

In my opinion, co-dependent arising can fit well with the metaphysics of
Quality but requires the use of a  transformative constant.  What I mean by
such a constant is similar to what is commonly used in physics.  To equate
two sides of an equality of two systems of measurement requires units of
conversion to harmonize the variables.  This is termed a constant.  For
example for Energy to be related to Mass (one is in joules (for example) and
the other in grams (for example) a constant which is the units of the speed
of light (E=(m) x (c) x (c).   A similar example would be transforming
pressure (psi) and volume (liters) into temperature.  The equation is
PV=nRT, where R is a transformative constant of fixed value.

In order to equate Quality (as understood by MoQ) and Emptiness (as
understood by Buddists) a translational constant is needed.  Thus we can say
that Emptiness and Quality are equal provided we transform one of these with
a constant which causes the units of measure of each to agree.  Such units
are provided in philosophy through the use of adjectives and conceptual
transformers, which is obviously not as neat as with physics.

Now, once such constants as defined in physics to equate two different types
of measuremen, their value takes on a significance of its own (like the
speed of light).  Another example is the Plank constant.  This value (and
its units) is considered to have fundamental significance in quantum
mechanics.  Look it up if you wish.  If we describe the constant(s) equating
Quality and Emptiness, these value have value in themselves.  Indeed, such
equating is what we are trying to do in a round about way in these related
posts.  Such a constant must come, however, from an agreed upon definition
of each (thus providing the units), which may at this time be incomplete or
may take a lifetime of personal practice to create.  Since the subjective
has not yet been exposed to an agreed upon system of measurement, defining
such a variable is very difficult.

So we are left with trying to equate understanding between individual
concepts of philosophical importance.  Now, Buddhism has been studied as a
philosophy for some time now.  If the assumption is that perhaps Quality is
a contemporary description of Emptiness, then it is up to MoQ to equate
terms.  Hopefully this is done in a positive way for personal understanding,
and not to just to muddy the waters and grind an axe against spiritual
notions.  If indeed it is useful for such contemplation then one cannot deny
its application in these discussions.  To say that Quality and Emptiness are
not equal (as some are doing), also requires proof such as that used in the
 Geometries.  Proving the negative is of course much more difficult.  I
would find such an endeavor fruitful and could participate if someone can
translate the concepts into formal variables of an equation like physicists
do.

Thanks for your post below, David, some further formalization may be
possible.

Cheers,
Mark

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 9:45 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> "As noted above, Pirsig uses the term ‘Dynamic Quality’ (to denote the
> continually changing flux of immediate reality) and ‘static quality’ (for
> any pattern that appears long enough to be abstracted from this flux).
> ‘Static quality’ refers to anything that can be conceptualised and is a
> synonym for the conditioned in Buddhist philosophy." "Moreover, Nagarjuna
> (1966, p.251) shares Pirsig’s perception that the indeterminate (or Dynamic)
> is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static)"  (Mcwatt, Anthony,
> 'MoQ Textbook)
>
>
> It seems to me that "emptiness" is a negative notion. The concept is used
> to oppose, deny or negate another concept. So naturally, understanding
> emptiness will require an understanding of the concept it opposes. If the
> indeterminate is opposed to the conditioned in the same way that the Dynamic
> is opposed to the static, then what is emptiness opposed to? What does the
> concept deny, exactly? And what does that have to do with DQ and sq?
>
> As I understand it, the idea of "emptiness" is to reject the metaphysics of
> substance, a rejection of essentialism, a denial that there is anything
> fixed and eternal. It's perfectly consistent with the MOQ but, as you may
> have noticed, I think there is a very real danger of turning this into
> foolish nihilism or relativism. There is a very real danger of
> misunderstanding what it means to deny that things have "independent
> existence" or "inherent existence", turning into the notion that nothing
> really exists at all.
>
> As you may have guessed, I'm thinking of Marsha's misunderstandings in
> particular. But I thought it might be helpful to spell out more fully what
> "emptiness" is actually supposed to be empty of, what the idea is denying in
> a detailed way. Then, as luck would have it, the following explanation just
> dropped into my lap. I subscribe to a philosophy podcast that focused on
> Nagarjuna and they sent links to various sources on the topic of emptiness.
> I thought the following would make a lot of sense to any MOQer. Please
> notice the part where the author says, "this is pretty much the antithesis
> to Plato's idealism. Plato holds that there is an ideal essence of
> everything".
>
>
> The Buddhist notion of emptiness is often misunderstood as nihilism.
> Unfortunately, 19th century Western philosophy has contributed much to this
> misconstruction. Meanwhile Western scholars have acquired enough knowledge
> about Buddhism to realise that this view is far from accurate. The only
> thing that nihilism and the teaching of emptiness can be said to have in
> common is a sceptical outset. While nihilism concludes that reality is
> unknowable, that nothing exists, that nothing meaningful can be communicated
> about the world, the Buddhist notion of emptiness arrives at just the
> opposite, namely that ultimate reality is knowable, that there is a
> clear-cut ontological basis for phenomena, and that we can communicate and
> derive useful knowledge from it about the world. Emptiness (sunyata) must
> not be confused with nothingness. Emptiness is not non-existence and it is
> not non-reality.
> What is emptiness then? To understand the philosophical meaning of this
> term, let's look at a simple solid object, such as a cup. How is a cup
> empty? We usually say that a cup is empty if it does not contain any liquid
> or solid. This is the ordinary meaning of emptiness. But, is the cup really
> empty? A cup empty of liquids or solids is still full of air. To be precise,
> we must therefore state what the cup is empty of. Can a cup be empty of all
> substance? A cup in a vacuum does not contain any air, but it still contains
> space, light, radiation, as well as its own substance. Hence, from a
> physical point of view, the cup is always full of something. Yet, from the
> Buddhist point of view, the cup is always empty. The Buddhist understanding
> of emptiness is different from the physical meaning. The cup being empty
> means that it is devoid of inherent existence.
> What is meant with non-inherent existence? Is this to say that the cup does
> not ultimately exist? - Not quite. - The cup exists, but like everything in
> this world, its existence depends on other phenomena. There is nothing in a
> cup that is inherent to that specific cup or to cups in general. Properties
> such as being hollow, spherical, cylindrical, or leak-proof are not
> intrinsic to cups. Other objects which are not cups have similar properties,
> as for example vases and glasses. The cup's properties and components are
> neither cups themselves nor do they imply cupness on their own. The material
> is not the cup. The shape is not the cup. The function is not the cup. Only
> all these aspects together make up the cup. Hence, we can say that for an
> object to be a cup we require a collection of specific conditions to exist.
> It depends on the combination of function, use, shape, base material, and
> the cup's other aspects. Only if all these conditions exist simultaneously
> does the mind impute cupness to the object. If one condition ceases to
> exist, for instance, if the cup's shape is altered by breaking it, the cup
> forfeits some or all of its cupness, because the object's function, its
> shape, as well as the imputation of cupness through perception is disrupted.
> The cup's existence thus depends on external circumstances. Its physical
> essence remains elusive.
> Those readers who are familiar with the theory of ideas of the Greek
> philosopher Plato will notice that this is pretty much the antithesis to
> Plato's idealism. Plato holds that there is an ideal essence of everything,
> e.g. cups, tables, houses, humans, and so on. Perhaps we can give Plato some
> credit by assuming that the essence of cups ultimately exists in the realm
> of mind. After all, it is the mind that perceives properties of an object
> and imputes cupness onto one object and tableness onto another. It is the
> mind that thinks "cup" and "table". Does it follow that the mind is
> responsible for the existence of these objects? - Apparently, the mind does
> not perceive cups and tables if there is no visual and tactile sensation.
> And, there cannot be visual and tactile sensation if there is no physical
> object. The perception thus depends on the presence of sensations, which in
> turn relies on the presence of the physical object. This is to say that the
> cup's essence is not in the mind. It is neither to be found in the physical
> object. Obviously, its essence is neither physical nor mental. It cannot be
> found in the world, not in the mind, and certainly not in any heavenly
> realm, as Plato imagined. We must conclude that the objects of perception
> have therefore no inherent existence.
> If this is the case for a simple object, such as a cup, then it must also
> apply to compound things, such as cars, houses, machines, etc. A car, for
> example, needs a motor, wheels, axles, gears, and many other things to work.
> Perhaps we should consider the difference between man-made objects, such as
> cups, and natural phenomena, such as earth, plants, animals, and human
> beings. One may argue that lack of inherent existence of objects does not
> imply the same for natural phenomena and beings. In case of a human being,
> there is a body, a mind, a character, a history of actions, habits,
> behaviour, and other things we can draw upon to describe a person. We can
> even divide these characteristics further into more fundamental properties.
> For example, we can analyse the mind and see that there are sensations,
> cognition, feelings, ideas. Or, we can analyse the brain and find that there
> are neurons, axons, synapses, and neurotransmitters. However, none of these
> constituents describe the essence of the person, the mind, or the brain.
> Again, the essence remains elusive.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>