On Mar 6, 2010, at 4:04 AM, Ham Priday wrote: > 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.
Greetings Ham, I no longer recognized a clear disagreement, but for a few tiny points. One point, there seems no need to imagine a primary source, and a second point is to imagine a purpose is not necessary. Both seem concepts seem far, far outside an individual's ability to _know_ . I'm not so sure I agree with the sets of opposites either. Sometimes there are opposites, but other times not. Unless, of course, you are talking about opposite-from-non-whatever. I love the static pattern of value as a double negative because it can include all related perceptual and conceptual experience. And then, of course, there's the fact that seer and the seen appear only when there is seeing; the experience 'seeing' comes first, then an 'I' seeing 'that'. Only the seeing is a fact, while the seer and the seen are doubtful. Words are failing me... Birth, death and self are static patterns of value - empty, relative truths. Dress them up with words of fear and/or beauty, but they are still static pattern of value. That doesn't diminish them, but makes more clear their nature which is beyond (maybe there's a better word than beyond) words and form. A pediment to one individual, crystal clear to another individual: relative, relative, relative... But it is true that often when I read your posts, something deep within agrees with what you've written. My head will be nodding in agreement. And often I want to reply, but I cannot find the words to explain the agreement. 'Tis a puzzlement. Marsha > > 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
