On 29 Aug 2009 at 3:57 PM "markhsmit" <[email protected]> wrote:
I do not claim to be well read in the subject of MOQ, and I post this as a means of obtaining opinions. Recently, I read a post which suggested we exist somewhere in the middle of opposites. That is on a continuum between good and evil, pain and pleasure, up and down and so forth. This is a common theme in Taoism. The Yin and the Yang. While these may not necessarily be considered to be opposites, they certainly co-sustain each other in an active way. DQ and SQ are these opposites or do they interplay in a way similar to Yin and Yang? The question is how does MOQ deal with the concept of opposites?
It doesn't. Pirsig has avoided metaphysical explanations. However, let me suggest an answer based on my own ontogeny. It's only a hypothesis, but please give it some consideration and let me know if it seems plausible. (I hestitate to use the word "logical", since classical logic applies only to relational systems.)
My premise is that the "opposite" (antithesis) of any existing thing is nothing. This is inductive reasoning from the principle that existence itself is a being/nothing duality. In my ontology an object, entity or particular being is actualized by nothingness. This doesn't make nothingness an "active agent" but, rather, a contingency of experience which IS the "creator". Moreover, it's the only ontology I'm aware of that makes beingness no more "real" than nothingness. Why is this significant? Because existence is the world of finite appearances, whereas Reality is neither being nor nothing but absolute Essence -- that which "is" as "not-other".
My "logic" is that Difference is required for things to exist. Since Essence is absolute and undivided, Difference can arise only by the negation of Essence. My hypothesis is that, from the human perspective, Essence is "negational"; that is to say, it negates the antipodal nothingness (anti-essence) to create Difference and the "otherness" that constitutes the cognizant subject's objective experience.
I would state that anything without an opposite exists. This brought me to my question, what is the opposite of a chair? Marsha has suggested (I think) that a chair is defined by its opposite. While I can understand this in terms of the presence of a chair (its opposite being its absence), I can't grasp this for the chair itself.
Okay, now compare your analysis of Marsha's suggestion with my ontogeny above. Can you grasp my "duality" theory any better than her "opposites" theory?
In the 15th century, Cusanus surmised that the "first principle" (God) transcends all opposition. He envisioned it as the opposite of contrariety, and defined it as the Not-other, leaving "otherness" (finitude) as the experienced "reduction" of what is infinite or absolute. Existence is a relational system of things and events divided by nothingness. Without nothingness a thing could not exist (appear to be). Hence, the reasoning for a negated nothngness that makes existence possible.
Does this make any sense to you, Will? I'd really like to know what you think.
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
