Greetings Ham, On Apr 12, 2010, at 5:24 PM, Ham Priday wrote:
> > Dear Marsha -- > > >> Better yet: Ultimate Truth and relative truth are interdependent. >> No Absolute or Primary Source required. > > If you believe in Ultimate Truth but can only know relative truth, how do you > justify your belief? What unknown form or entity does Ultimate Truth assume? > Ultimate Truth is not a form or entity. Ultimate Truth is the lack of inherent existence, independence, autonomy, permanence and changelessness. To the Buddhist, it is Emptiness or dependent arising. To the MoQ'ist it is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable Quality. > If you are a pantheist or an objectivist, that Truth resides in the universe > of being. > But if it can never be known, of what value is it to you? To pursue the ultimate truth obstructs "false conceptions", illusion, > Since you deny a primary source or Creator, I can only assume that you > believe the universe created itself and that you are a late product of its > evolution. If by evolution you mean 'change', I understand myself to be the flow of ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent organic, biological, social, and intellectual patterns. >> Pardon my interruption. What posits a "cognitive self" and >> "Uncreated Source" other than the "experiential representation" >> formed by this "relational space/time system", or mental ignorance? >> And it's this mental ignorance that creates an independent, >> objective reality and an independent, subjective observer or >> individual self. > > If this was intended to be a cause-and-effect analysis, you've lost me. > "Ignorance" of any kind creates nothing, Marsha. Perhaps you meant to > say "incomplete knowledge" or "illogical reasoning", either of which can > lead to false conceptions. If one thinks that the 'incomplete knowledge' or 'illogical reasoning' is the Truth and never question such assumptions, than that seems a pretty good definition of ignorance. It's not a pretty word, but I fully admit, pretty or not, that I am working with my own ignorance. (Be quiet, xacto!) > I do not "posit" a cognitive self; I accept it as self-evident, - Maybe you "accept it", but to others you have posited it, asked them to assume its absence. > just as I accept the experienced world as relational. Logic is my evidence > that nothing comes into existence by its own power, which is why I posit an > uncreated Source. I might suggest that patterns (existence) are interdependent with an infinite number of causes and conditions, and not a "Primary Source". Patterns have a beginning, middle and ending, and that their ending allows for the beginning of another pattern, as a perpetual flow. > You reject the evidence and attribute the appearance of S/O reality to > "mental ignorance". I do not reject the appearance of patterns, but do reject that they are independent, autonomous entities (subjects and objects). There are inorganic, biological, social and intellectual ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent static patterns of value. > If I am mentally ignorant, where do I find the source > of knowledge or wisdom that your Ultimate Truth is based on? You might investigate whether there is within what you think to be the self or what you think to be external objects is changelessness, independence, and permanence? You've already stated elsewhere that all is relative, than the ultimate truth that can be known is that all is relative, and what is beyond the known is unknowable and undefinable. Yes? > Does the concept that the universe is made of Quality satisfy that Ultimate > Truth for you? Quality is a label for what is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. > Just curious, Marsha, > Ham Audaciously yours, Marsha ___ 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
