[Ham]
> What we experience is "the appearance" of physical
> (i.e., substantive)
> reality. This appearance is finite, dimensional,
> and constantly in motion.
> Metaphysically, it's a reduction of the primary
> source observed as an object
> of which we are the subjects. As such (SA, Dan,
> David, Arlo, Pirsig, and
> Buddhism notwithstanding) existence is an illusion.
> And since we are the
> subjective 'apprehenders' of existence, we are also
> an illusion. Our
> awareness is illusionary, and so is our knowledge,
> our ideas, and our very
> selves.
Ham, I never said, "...existence is an illusion."
I even asked Platt, "where does buddhism say
existence is an illusion?"
I didn't like the word being used in the context
of real/illusion dichotomy to gather information. I
felt it was getting us, as I put it to Platt -
"nowhere". "It is a mu question," referring to 'What
is illusional, real, illogical, and logical?"
I see where others are coming from in their use
of illusion, but I didn't see this kind of
illusion/real or logical/illogical discussion getting
to the "root", as I put it. By illusion, they were
trying to use a concept to show the "non-inherent
aspect of 'things'". I posted this awhile back on
[MD] real/illusion/real Fri Sep 21 15:03:59 PDT 2007
the following:
"As to a philosophical self is an illusion, and a
pragmatic self is real, it is using this illusion/real
premise that is breaking down the communication here,
as we well know."
Then after I posted this, I read further in
another thread and saw Ant said something similar
already to Platt as follows on the [MD] subject /
object logic Fri Sep 21 04:31:35 PDT 2007:
"I think the fundamental problem here is
assigning ontological equivalence of static entities
with Dynamic Quality. Consequently, the either/or
dichotomy of asking whether a static entity is real or
illusory is a ham fisted way to deal with such a
question and is presumably the reason why Buddhist
philosophers invented the more subtle four pronged
tetralemma to better handle such questions.
In some sense to ask if my pet dog is real or an
illusion is as problematic logically as asking if my
pet dog has a Buddha nature. In other words, maybe
the problem lies in asking a question that is
essentially nonsensical in the first place and, as
such, requires framing in a different way."
[Ham]
> Okay, Now that you have the fundamentals, can you
say that this
> appearance is REAL?
> It is certainly real for you, inasmuch as it is the
> only reality you know
> and is the reality you participate in.
> But, at the same time, it is "illusional" because it
> is only a fractional
> representation of Essence intellectually conceived.
Though with different premises underlying essence
and moq (which would hamper comparisons as to why
similar conclusions) I, for one, using the moq can
also understand how static patterns are real and
illusionary at the same time. This is why I believe
others were using illusion.
[Ham]
> In a real sense, EVERYTHING is illusional, not
because it doesn't
> exist but because it is not Reality--at least not
the Ultimate Reality.
That's also why others, I believe, and myself see
how the concept of illusional for static patterns is
helpful, due to the primary reality of dq. You have
said this very well Ham, thanks.
[Ham]
> Your answer, it would then
> seem, depends on whether you believe in an ultimate
> (i.e, metaphysical)
> reality or not. If you don't, the conditional,
> evolutional system comprised
> of things, events, and selves must suffice as your
> reality.
> Of course, if you're a Pirsigian you will be
> expected to call Quality your
> reality, whether you understand it as conditional or
> ultimate.
> Have I resolved anything?
Well put!
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo!
FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/
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/
