[MD] What's Emptiness?

[Ham Priday]

Yes, Mark....

We indeed have an issue with contextual understanding.

> To say that essence stands on its own is indeed a position to take
> which may be contrary to all this discussion of Emptiness.
> As always, this is where my (sometimes oblique) question to you
> come from.  I have not yet figured out the right way to phrase the
> question.  So I'll think a bit more.
>
> The term "entanglement" does indeed provide a descriptor similar
> to what we have recently been calling emptiness, and of course has
> support from the metaphysics of physics.  However, I choose to
> view it a bit differently.  That is, that Quality actively differentiates.
> It is not the result of entanglement, that is, a passive arising, but an
> active separator (if you will).  So perhaps in this way, I mirror your
> intuition on essence.

To say that "Quality actively differentiates" is the same as saying that 
Goodness divides into
good and evil, pleasure and pain, order and chaos, etc.  This, of course, is 
nonsense.  White light can be separated into a spectrum of many different 
colors, but it is the prism that does the differentiating.  Cognizant 
sensibility is the human prism that separates good from bad values, but 
differentiated values do not exist "of themselves" apart from our 
sensibility.  So how can Value (Quality) be a differentiator?

> When viewed as an active creator, rather than a (subjective) delineator,
> Quality can then be given certain metaphysical characteristics.  In doing
> so, one then builds MoQ without being sidetracked by all this relativism.
> There is something that allows us to differentiate (provide value to), of
> that I have no doubt.  This may be your sensibility.  It is the underlying
> force (to use a term from physics) of such differentiation that forms the
> circle in the wagon wheel where all spokes come together (to use a Tao
> concept).  If Quality doesn't create but is only a result, then we have to
> start back at the beginning and redefine terms.

The contextual entanglement or conflation here is the notion that Quality or 
Value is the "active agent" of creation.  This is not a valid metaphysical 
premise.  Value can only be realized by a sensible agent, just as color can 
only be "realized" by a prism which separates the energy waves of white 
light into their respective freqency bands.  You need a Primary Source in 
either case; and that source is not Quality but Essence.  The "realizer" of 
Essence is the value-sensible individual who is estranged from the Source. 
You and I are the prismatic agents which differentiate essential value into 
'the thousand things' and events that constitute our reality experience. 
The source of that Value is Essence.

Did you ever wonder why the Pirsigians talk about "constantly changing 
interrelational patterns" as "Static" while calling the eternal unchanging 
Source "Dynamic"?  This makes no sense to me, either, yet everyone seems to 
have accepted this terminology in their ontology.  It makes the concept of a 
Primary Source difficult, if not impossible, to conceive.

Also, you have yet to explain to me how the Buddhistic notion of Emptiness 
leads to compassion and social harmony.  I'd like to think there's a 
connection here, but so far it's not in sight.

I do appreciate your insights, Mark.  At present, however, they are slightly 
out of order for me.

Essentially speaking,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Greetings Mark [DMB quoted]--
>>
>> Your post to dmb of 10/13 is a superb rationale.  Naturally, I am most in
>> harmony with what you said about Emptiness (which I equate with
>> Nothingness.).
>>
>>  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.
>>>
>>
>> The concept that "things do not exist of themselves" is so crucial to
>> metaphysics that I wish it had been stated in Pirsig's writings.  Nothing
>> exists by its own power -- even nothingness itself.  When you say "things
>> such as reality do not exist," I fully expect someone to ask, "What is
>> reality, then?"  And that dramatically demonstrates the failure of words 
>> to
>> convey meaning.
>>
>> Not only do we not understand the meaning of "emptiness", but we 
>> constantly
>> use words such as "existence", "dynamic", "static", "patterns",
>> "unpatterns", "experience", and even "quality" in assertions that lack
>> comprehensibility.  Most of these terms have Pirsigian translations that
>> bear little resemblance to common definitions.  To put it crudely, we 
>> speak
>> a sophisticated language without communicating our thoughts, and 
>> sometimes
>> (I suspect) without knowing what we're talking about.
>>
>> I was particularly impressed with your reference to the Buddhistic notion
>> of "co-dependent arising" which we hashed around a bit under a previous
>> thread:
>>
>>  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 one's participation in this world, has tremendous
>>> results: selfless compassion for all sentient beings.  So, if nothing 
>>> else
>>> it
>>> can result in societal harmony.
>>>
>>
>> I know very little about Buddhist teachings.  Would you oblige me by
>> explaining, possibly with an example or two, how "the notion of 
>> Emptiness"
>> leads to compassion and societal harmony?
>>
>> Lastly, there is David's statement, and your response, regarding the
>> "essence of mind":
>>
>> [DMB]:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> [Mark]:
>>
>>> 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 one sense, I disagree that the mind "has no essence of its own."  I
>> believe that the mind, or what I prefer to call "cognizant sensibility", 
>> can
>> in fact be defined as "essence on its own". David is right that "the 
>> essence
>> remains elusive", but in my ontology Sensibility is essential; that is, 
>> it
>> is an attribute of Absolute Essence, as is Value.  In existential
>> (experiential) reality these attributes are differentiated so that one is
>> cognizant of Value as the objective world.
>>
>>  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 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.
>>>
>>
>> The application of physical constants to metaphysical premises is an
>> intriguing idea, although this is far beyond my expertise.  Clearly
>> something is needed to make sense of the propositions we are discussing, 
>> and
>> the constant may well serve this purpose.  While I would hate to see the 
>> MoQ
>> converted to equations and symbols, I'm willing to collaborate with you 
>> (and
>> others) on such a project if that is what you have in mind.
>>
>> Thanks for a very insightful post, Mark.
>>
>> Essentially yours,
>> Ham