[MD] What's Emptiness?

[118]

Hi Ham,
Thanks for the input.  Comments below.

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

>
> Hi Mark --
>
>
>  I think I understand your concern.  To say it is a function of I mean
>> that it is permutations of.  A house is a function of the bricks and
>> how they fit together.  I suppose from that example we can say that
>> the bricks lead to the house, but doesn't the house lead to how the
>> bricks are put together?  So, I am not pointing to anything fundamental
>> (yet).
>>
>
> But you ARE, Mark.  The formula DQ = fn(SQ) points to the conclusion that
> the parts construct the whole.  This is true only if you subscribe to
> pantheism.
>

I  looked up pantheism to make sure I was not mispeaking.  I'll go with the
first sentence in Wiki.  Nature and God are identical.  I could make an
equation out of this one, break up nature into its components and God into
its components to see where this gets us.

My formula is simply relying on what I have read in this forum.  Yes, there
can be a fundamental disagreement on the premise.  This would of course
immediately make such an approach meaningless.  If we do not agree on the
assumptions then we go nowhere.  The words that you use to describe Ultimate
Reality within your system of thought also breaks it up into components.
 The purpose of the components is to provide further understanding.  It is
saying that the concept of Ultimate Reality can also be described as such
and such.  Such descriptive sentences are equations in themselves.  The
formula that I provide is simply a theory.  By subjecting the theory to
mathematical analysis, we can prove or disprove it.  If nothing else, it
leads to other ideas.

>
>  Conclusions can be drawn from a more sophisticated equation.
>> According the physics, the universe is made up of primary forces;
>> it is defined by them.  We can get into what side defines which side,
>> but the equation simply states that they are different ways of
>> expressing the same thing.  The purpose of the equation is to
>> break up Quality into constituents.
>>
>> My force equation was just an example of something being defined by
>> characteristics, which in turn can be further defined.  The intent to to
>> find some universal constants, which in the case of Quality would be
>> rhetorical devices (I'm sure John or dmb will correct me on this if I'm
>> mistaken).
>>
>> So, a tree is a function of its branches and leaves (and of course much
>> more), meaning how they are put together.  If you accept the use of
>> equalities then we can move on to describing how Quality is put together.
>>
>
> I can accept the "equality" of the universe with its component parts.  What
> I cannot accept is
> the concept that Ultimate Reality (DQ or Essence) is the sum of (or is made
> up of) finite constituents.  All I can say on this point is that Essence
> transcends the finitude which, at best, is a "differentiated reflection" of
> its Source.  But I doubt that you will view this as a concession on my part.
>

Here you are talking about a process, that is, Reflection.  This process is
a constant which acts on the variables; that is, what it is differentiating.
 We can call that variable the Source.  I am not speaking of a sum, I am
speaking of an operator such as seen in the Schrodinger equation (Epsi =
Hpsi).  In your case, differentiation would be the operator.  The attempts
at an ultimate equation such as sought by Einstein does not make the
universe finite, it acts as an interpretation for further understanding.  We
shouldn't confuse the equation with the thing itself.

>
> Furthermore, I think it has been established by the MDers that it is not
> possible to define the ineffable in terms of the concrete.  So, while a
> trunk with its branches and leaves "describes" a tree, these physical
> components do not in themselves constitute the "essence" of the tree or any
> other entity.  That essence is either Value (Quality), Forms (platonic),
> Consciousness, Beingness, or some other creative source of which the
> experienced components are functions.  Unless there are metaphysical
> functions that can cross the boundary of relational existence, it would
> appear that your goal is unachieveable.  In other words, you can't get there
> by basing your equations on physical principles.
>

I think I answered this in my previous paragraph.  It would seem that the
whole MDer purpose IS to define the ineffable with the concrete.  That is
use words to describe the indescribable.  It is the meaningfulness of such a
description that we are trying to improve. Again, the words do not
constitute Value, they describe it.  Now, crossing the boundary of
relational existence... I'll have to think about that one.  It is accepted
that concepts such as imaginary numbers can cross boundaries, perhaps that
is one way to attack this.

>
> This, I think, is also the problem one confronts when trying to apply
> logical syllogisms to metaphysical "truths".  The logic of empirical
> existence presumes a relational source; but that's fallacious because there
> is no justification for this presumption.
>

Well, you can run but you can't hide.  Metaphysical truths beg logical
differentiation.  This is why we spend the time contemplating them.

>
> I didn't intend to throw a monkey wrench at your "constants" approach
> which, on the surface, seemed intriguing and worth attempting.  But I can
> see now that it begs the question of metaphysical reality as a "composite"
> of existential being.  And existentialism is inimical to Essentialism.
>  Perhaps others here who share your views will jump in to assist you.
>

I am rereading a translation of Kierkegaards Sickness unto Death to get a
better understanding of his concept of Self.  According to the translator's
introduction, Kierkegaard was a theistic existentialist.  One would think
this is inimical, but no.  I believe your Essentialism claims to be
a-theistic (not athiest) in a Christian sense.  However it could be grouped
in the Theist box.  Nonetheless,  I would reconsider your refusal of
existentialism.

>
> In the meantime, there is much to be gained by clarifying the meaning of
> the terms being bandied about.  Pirsig didn't like to be pinned down by
> definitions, which I think has proved to be a dialectical
> handicap--especially for an English teacher.  For example, does it enhance
> our understanding to use the term "pattern" for every phenomenon
> experienced, including the observing subject?  Do we really need to view the
> evolving universe as "a static pattern" in order to understand DQ as
> something greater?  Is an amoral universe contradictory to man's efforts to
> establish a moral culture?  And does "evolving to betterness" have any
> meaning if human beings are not the active choice-makers in this movement?
>

Yea, clarification of terms.  This is a primary goal of the mathematical
approach.  There are lots of weasels commenting on this forum.  I guess I am
one.

>
> I respectfully suggest that until such fundamental questions are resolved
> to everyone's satisfaction, the full implications of Pirsig's metaphysics
> will remain in doubt.
>

I'm fine with that.  However, current approaches do not seem to be
harmonizing into anything; a conclusion I arrive to from the disparate
discussions.  The math approach is but one way to delve into such questions.

All the best,
Mark

>
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
>
> 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
>