David H., SA --
[David H.]: > Sq and DQ are complete opposites, defined as such they > push each other away. But they aren't opposites in the > traditional exclusive sense, they are opposite qualities. > So whilst they are opposite, because they are qualities > they work together. [SA]: > This I can agree with. A rock is working together > with nothing. The rock and nothing are separate, but > together in the sense they work together. I can > notice dq by looking at a rock. The rock is a static > pattern, but working with the rock is dq. Separate > but working together. Why not reverse your DQ = nothing, sq = "thing" fixation, and consider DQ as the primary "essence" that actuates nothingness? Better yet, forget DQ/sq entirely. Look at it this way: A rock is "a particular thing" as opposed to everything or "no particular thing" because it is separated (delineated) by nothingness. It is nothingness that enables us to recognize an object and its properties as distinguished from, let's say, pure Quality or Value. Nothingness separates all things in existence. Thus, if there were no nothingness, there would be no objects or things. In a metaphysical sense, Nothingness and Essence do "push each other away," as David says. This "pushing away" creates the S/O divide. But when we experience something, we extract its essence (i.e., Value) by penetrating the divide, "bringing them together", and making a "being aware". That is to say, we abstract the thing's value from Essence and experience a particular being (a rock, for example). Nothingness gives us the power to reduce the value of Essence to finite beingness. Without nothingness there would be neither subject nor object. Doesn't this give you a better paradigm for existential reality than "static and dynamic working together"? Or than asserting that Pirsig's primary empirical reality "isn't anything"? It's obvious to me that what is primary cannot be nothing, since a thing can't be derived from nothing. So, either you have to reverse your definition and make DQ undifferentiated being and sq its actualized difference, or consider my hypothesis. Simply speaking, I view differentiated experience as a reduced perspective of an undifferentiated source. Nothingness can arise from an undifferentiated source, but a thing can't arise from nothing. For your consideration, 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/
