Steve, Andre, and Marsha --
First, I must apologize to Steve for inadvertently pushing the 'send' button
before signing off my message of 3/5. Since then, Bodvar, Andre, and Marsha
have added their thoughts. (Bo is still pushing the 'Intellect' button and
is so obsessed with the inadequacies of SOM and "social level value" that he
has missed the point of Steve's quest entirely.)
Next, I have to correct Andre's interpretation of 'Essence' which led him to
this complaint:
There is not a 'thing' in the universe that is not linked in some way
to something else in the universe. There is nothing that has an
independent 'essence' ( which is something that Ham needs to wake up
to). There is no independent existence called tree, mountain, Andre,
Steve, Pirsig. We have all dependently arisen. 'We' were not born at a
certain point in time and within a certain point in space. So if we
have not been born, how can we speak of dying? As if being born and
dying are separate, independent, essential processes within something
called 'living' in between.
Andre, if you will read what I said more carefully, you'll see that it is
mostly in accord with what you have stated. I don't have to "wake up to"
the fact that there is only one Absolute Essence, since that's the
foundation of my philosophy, and I have always maintained that nothing else
has an independent essence. That's why the self of man is a negate
(nothingness) and is linked to value by his/her sensibility. Also,
everything in the universe is "linked in some way to something else in the
universe." That's what it means to say that existence is a "relational
system". We are all "dependent" on otherness (essential value) for our
existence. As I said: "Everything the self depends on for existence--a
functioning physical body, self-awareness, differentiated beingness, and an
ordered relational world--is 'borrowed' from otherness."
I see no inconsistency in the reality of existential birth and Gautama's
phrase "we have all dependently arisen." However, I don't agree with your
assertion that "were not born at a certain point in time ...and space," or
your suggestion that we have not even been born! You are talking from an
abstract metaphysical perspective, whereas we exist in a relational
universe. It's one thing to speculate that birth and death "don't count" in
the overall scheme of things, but quite another to dismiss the fact that in
a space/time world these events mark the beginning and end of our existence.
Finally, to dear Marsha who "can only agree with Andre's words [but]...can
agree with your words too, but only in a negated way," I ask two questions:
Where do we disagree, and how can one agree "in a negated way"? That sounds
contradictory to me. If the words Andre uses are more understandable to
you, then by all means embrace them. The koans and teachings of the mystics
may help to sharpen our introspection but I find them confusing as
metaphysical premises. Andre's notion that birth and death are not
processes of the life-experience, for example, is more of an impediment than
a clarification of the nature of existence.
But Steve's topic is literally "a life and death matter", and I'm pleased to
see it getting some attention.
Essentially speaking,
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
