Hi Ham, Thanks for that. It is slightly clear, but only out of the corner of my eye. It seems more like an equation than anything else, everything which is not zero (not trying to diminish).
As we stretch the math in physics such nothingness appears everywhere. We have concepts such as the square root of negative one (i), which cannot exist, but bridges the gaps between that which does, much is the same way as a quantum jump. I suppose we can bring in parallel universes and such, but I digress. Now, to get back to the forum and try to harmonize. In its essence, the negation of Nothingness may arise as Quality (or Value to the subjective mind); or am I wrong? It is not inherent in things or patterns yet delimits them. Our fundamental contact with such Quality is at the point level, or, as Pirsig would say, at the pre-intellectual level. However, our contact must also be at every other level including the intellectual. As we distill and grow bored, our contact only becomes the map, and not the terrain. As much as we try to redraw the map, it is never more than that. Is this close? Now, I have read Eckhart (no not that impostor Tolle, but the one W. James introduced me to years ago), and his descriptions are that of a mystical experience, not a thought out logic. Not to say that such words can not transfer the experience to others. All I can say is keep at it, something's got to click into place. This post is just myself thinking out loud, it really has no other purpose. Cheers, Mark On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark [with references to Marsha] -- > > So, to improve my understanding of Nothingness, >> does this have anything to with Emptiness as Marsha >> has been bringing up? >> > > Nothingness is a non-relational term. It implies emptiness only insofar as > there are no boundaries to what is "empty". For instance, that a cup is > empty of contents does not mean that it contains nothingness. A perfect > vacuum is "emptiness" only if the bell jar in the pumping mechanism is > disregarded. > > In other words, metaphysical nothingness isn't to be found in the physical > world -- not because it doesn't factor in existence, but because we do not > experience it. > > On the other hand, sensible awareness is a physical nothingness. We can't > measure, quantify, or localize it. How, then, is it possible for an > existent not to exist? Metaphysically speaking, neither sensibility nor > value exists. > When I'm careful, I use the term "essent" to identify a derivative of > Essence that functions in the relational world. I can do this with > impunity, as I have posited Essence as not only indivisible but also > absolute. Which means that even Nothing is essential in that it represents > the negation of Essence. It is this negation which accounts for the > difference and contrariety of finite existence. > > As for Marsha's interpretation of Eastern philosophy, "emptiness" and > "fullness" have the same exact meaning to a Buddhist: namely, not divided > into "things", not relative, non-dimensional and absolute. Meister Eckhart > described God as "absolute fullness of being." His meaning is clear: the > primary source is not encumbered by "thingness" and relations. Instead, it > is perfect=eternal=immutable Oneness. Now I ask you: Is this "emptiness" or > "fullness"? > > Existents can only occur (emerge?) as a negation of the absolute source. > There is no other logical explanation, for there is nothing -- no > othernenss, "outside of" Absolute Essence -- from which to create a physical > universe. Stars, planets, rocks and trees are "other" to us because of the > nothingness of the cognizant negate that experiences and defines all finite > entities. In short, finitude is an illusional hybrid of being and nothing > constructed (reducted?) from essential value by the negated self. > > This analysis probably includes more detail than your question requires, > but I offer it as food for additional thought. If it's any consolation, I > have never managed to convey this ontogeny successfully. Either I'm a lousy > comunicator or the folks here are so accustomed to denouncing anything that > smacks of mysticism or supernaturalism that they pay me no heed. > > Perhaps someone of your biophysical bent will indulge me by giving due > consideration to this concept and, hopefully, provide the proper logistical > framework with which to articulate it. > > Thanks, Mark. > > 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 > 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
