G'day Mark --
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?
The points you make about nothingness are valid, although I sense that they don't add up to a concept you can get a grip on. I think that's because there are many ways to describe nothingness as a differentiating principle. I particularly like your chacterization of Value as "not inherent in things or patterns." It would certainly please Pirsig. However, I believe "delimitation" is not Value per se but the affect of our own nothingness "penetrating the essent" (Sartre's euphemism) to objectify specific phenomena.
Applying Occam's razor and expressing this ontogeny as a simple chronology, it almost comes down to Eckhart's analogy of absolute [Essence] "overflowing itself", much like the photon energy given off secondarily from a nuclear explosion. This overflow dissociates what we recognize as primary attributes of Essence; namely, "sensibility" and "beingness". The sensibility (awareness) is existential nothingness [negate], while the beingness [essent] represents the "substance" of Essence deprived of its sensibility.
What holds this dichotomy irretrievably together is the essential attraction (Value) between them. And, because Value is also essential, it bears the stamp of the Grand Design, which makes our individual delimitation (secondary negation) of objects conform to a universal system or pattern.
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.
I've owned a highly readable paperback anthology of this gnostic (translated from the German by Raymond Blakney) since the '50s and still refer to it frequently. "Meister Eckhart", Harper Torchbooks (c)1949, is a real gem and should be available in some new printing. If you can find it, it's well worth adding to your library.
This post is just myself thinking out loud, it really has no other purpose.
I have found that thinking out loud -- better yet, noting it down -- is the best approach to philosophical conceptualizing. Then you can post it to your friends who will freely offer advice as to what's wrong with it. Some of them may even be right, in which case you come out ahead more swiftly.
Cheers, 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
