[MD] What's Emptiness?

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Mark --


> The analogy to a prism is as good as any to use.  By my
> interpretation, Quality is that prism.  Our sensibility is able
> to detect the results of such differentiation.  We cannot
> create it, only interpret.  Quality actively separates good
> and evil, our sensibility mirrors it.  Whether or not this is a
> valid metaphysical premise is not my call, since I am not
> entirely familiar with the rules governing such a thing.
> Perhaps a little explanation of your statement to that effect
> is appropriate.

If Quality is the 'summum bonum' or highest good, it could not logically 
differentiate itself into badness, malevolence, or depravity, let alone be 
the originating source of these adversities.  Even the Greek sophists 
realized that "man is the measure of all things", which means that man in 
the differentiating agent.  In a valuistic ontogeny, such as the MoQ, what 
man differentiates is Quality.  In other words, he makes pure (absolute) 
Value relative in the finite terms of his own sensibility, which is how 
goodness and morality are distinguished or delineated from baseness and 
evil.

The imperfection man experiences in the relational world is due to the 
nothingness of his sensible perspective.  He experiences otherness finitely 
and conditionally, rather than absolutely, and the object of his experience 
is not Essence itself but only its value.  Only by such a construct can 
Value be measured (i.e., realized) as the qualitative range or spectrum of 
existential reality.  Which is why the universe is not, nor ever will be, 
"absolutely moral" as Mr. Pirsig would have us believe.

I think you also have to consider the teleological factor: If man is not the 
agent of value, what purpose does he serve in existence?  And where is 
Freedom in the life-experience?

> The dynamic and static separation is analogous (for me) as
> differentiating between the concept of a tree and its constituent
> parts.  I believe the notion of change is the important
> measurement in this case.  We have Change, and we have its parts.

But "having its parts" in the constant evolution and diversity of experience 
is in no way a "static" situation.  Transitional existence simply does not 
fit this description.  Nor is there any metaphysical justification IMO for 
applying the label "dynamic" to an immutable source.

> OK, and now for my statement on the end result of Buddhist thought
> resulting in compassion.  There are many examples of this in that
> philosophy, including Buddha himself, but I will use a psychological
> description here.  The ego is one of self centeredness (I don't mean
> this in a bad way).  The notion of "I" as an entity is the basis of the 
> ego.
> The sense of self creates the notion of accumulation, that is increasing
> the self.  If one takes away the ego, this idea of accumulation 
> disappears;
> accepting Emptiness does just this. (this may be a leap, but I will
> leave it to your questions to try to describe further).  When the idea of
> accumulation (or clinging) goes away, there is still much left.
> What is left is the opposite (the Yang I think, the earth, the giving,
> the woman, maybe it is Yin, I forget).  So, perhaps (and now I am
> just going on train of thought) Buddhism tunes the prism of Quality
> so that one side is ignored.

And Dan said to Ron:
> I don't know for sure, but I would say that the selfless existence
> doesn't mean denying the self so much as it means realizing the self
> doesn't exist in light of the Buddha's teachings.

How can self-denial or self-rejection possibly result in a more 
compassionate individual?
Love and compassion are by their very nature emotive expressions of 
selfness.  I can't  imagine a "selfless" person being capable of even 
feeling love for another.  And which "side of the prism" is to be ignored? 
If it's the negative side of Quality, aren't your really forcing the issue?

I'm afraid this isn't getting us anywhere, Mark.  Maybe the solution is to 
get back to the "constants" approach you've proposed for metaphysical 
discourse.  At least it will focus our attention on one concept at a time, 
which I believe is necessary for mutual understanding.  But you'll have to 
initiate such a discussion.

Cheers for now,
Ham