On Apr 13, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Marsha V wrote:
This has been on my mind since this morning, so
forgive me if I seem to respond too quickly.
No problem. I'm still on line, so there's nothing to forgive.
I agree with you that the Buddhist's Emptiness does not
represent a void or empty space.
Good.
I read somewhere that the choice of Ultimate over Absolute
was to indicate there was nothing concrete being implied.
Nothing concrete is implied, unless you consider "absolute" a concrete
atttribute.
I generally use "ultimate" in reference to Reality and "absolute" in
reference to finitude. Absolute, I think, also implies "unconditional';
that is, free of relational conditions such as birth and death, dependency,
evolution, and otherness. There has to be a primary source for anything to
exist or be created. Essence, for me, is that "uncreated, eternal" Source.
I could not expect an individual mind to divide, define or know
what is clearly beyond it.
You said "to divide". Did you mean to say "to divine", as in theorize? If
so, why would you not expect a philosopher to divine an uncreated source for
the created universe? Isn't that what an ontogeny is?
Conscious agent versus a self? Maybe a consideration for another day.
Nothing to be concerned about. "Agent" is the functional role of the
individual; "self" is the individual's identity. For me, the terms are
synonomous.
[Marsha, previously]:
I understand myself to be the flow of ever-changing, interdependent,
impermanent organic, biological, social, and intellectual patterns.
[Ham]:
Such a collection of ephemera does indeed suggest "emptiness"...
[Marsha]:
That would be empty of independent existence.
Hmm. But you said above that the patterns are "interdependent". That means
everything depends on everything else. Even without "things", that's a
cacophony, not an ordered universe.
[Ham continues}:
yet there is no cause or progenitor implied.
[Marsha]:
Conventionally both are implied, but no truth beyond their pragmatic
existence.
Does this mean you restrict your understanding to pragmatic truth? If so,
how can you be an MoQist?
Causation is the conventional point-of-view. With Quality, if
Quality is the same as Emptiness, there is interdependency
which is non-causal.
Any system -- even a hierarchy -- is not immune from cause. How does it
follow that an interdependent universe is non-causal?
I think we must keep separate 'after experience judgments' from
'immediate experience value'. Measurement pulls us into the realm
of static patterns, or conventional reality.
It was Mr. Pirsig who posited Quality = Reality. I am only pointing out
that Quality is invalid without a qualitative referent. "After"
vs."immediate", by the way, also pulls us into the time dimension of
experiential reality. Isn't space/time a static pattern, too?
What builds conceptual knowledge but patterns of experience?
What a game!!!
The way you describe your cosmogeny, it's an endless circle dancing with
itself. It reminds me of Alan Watts on LSD.
I like the idea of approaching Ultimate Truth by discovering what is
false,
and I know I sound like broken record, but it is why I appreciate: not
this,
not that.
If you cannot know what is true, how can you know what is false?
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
