[MD] What's Emptiness?

[Ham Priday]

Mark --

> Quality can be considered in two parts, dynamic and static.
> This has been termed as DQ and SQ.  From my understanding,
> SQ is a component of DQ and I have not been made aware
> of any other components.  So in some way SQ makes up DQ.
> We start with an inequality:
>
> DQ does not equal SQ
>
> but
>
> DQ = fn(SQ)

Right off the bat you start with what I cannot accept as a valid premise.  I 
do not regard DQ as a "function" of SQ.  Although RMP has not specifically 
defined it as such, my understanding is that DQ is the primary source.  I'm 
not a logician, but can a source be a function of its components?  Correct 
me if I am wrong, but it would seem to me that it's the other way around: 
Constituents are secondary to the Source, therefore represent its functions
-- relations, increments, levels, properties, antimonies, and so on.

In the physical examples you cite (e.g.,  F = ma), the constituents are all 
functions of nature or the universe.  You wouldn't say that the universe is 
a function of force, mass, and acceleration, would you?  Neither can the 
Creator be a function of its creation.

> This initial definition is important because it sets the premise to be
> constructed.  Of course we can put functions on both sides of the
> equation, but that would not help much.  So I will use DQ as the
> overriding term to be defined in the same way that the physics
> equation for force: F = ma is used (force equals mass times acceleration).
>
> Now we have to define the function itself. ...

I'm going to cut off my response here until the basic logic is resolved.

Based on your rationale, it would appear that SQ leads to, or creates, DQ. 
This was the same approach taken by the existentialists Heidegger and Sartre 
who claimed that "existence precedes essence" and determines its outcome. 
Is this your interpretation of the SQ --> DQ theorem?

If I've misunderstood you ontogeny, please let me know.  Otherwise, I don't 
see how I can be of help in working out the details of a concept I don't 
believe in.

Essentially speaking,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> DQ = Z(SQ)
>
> Where Z is a constant.
>
> I don't think that this would fly in this forum.  So perhaps there is an
> additional variable that can be introduced which we will call iB (this
> stands for in Between).  In this case either it acts on SQ, or adds to it.
>
> DQ = iB + SQ
>
>  or
>
> DQ = iB(SQ).
>
> Now the chore is to break both SQ and IB into measurable (philosophical)
> components.
>
> My attention span at this point is probably the same as yours, and 
> wondering
> what other posts there are to read besides this nonsense.  So I will stop
> with that.  The question left on the table is: can we provide further,
> component based, definitions for SQ?
>
> Cheers for now,
>
> Mark