On Mar 6, 2010, at 5:17 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > 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. > >
p.s. Ham, when I wrote I can only agree with Andre's words, I didn't mean I couldn't agree with anyone else's words, but that what Andre wrote pretty much matched my own perspective and I couldn't add anything of additional value. > > > > > > > > > > >> >> 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 ___ 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
