On Apr 13, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Ham Priday wrote: > >> 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 cannot find the reference, so I suppose my point has gone puff. But I might mention that Emptiness, which represents the Ultimate Truth, is in the end determined to be empty, and much like Quality falls into the attributes of indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. > 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 don't think there has to be a primary source. Interdependent origination does not sequence origination. > >> 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? I meant indivisible as in monism. >> 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. For some other day. > [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. Yes interdependent, but in the confusion of conventional (static) reality that is mistakenly taken to be causal, while Ultimately it is non-causal. > > [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? I do't think so. I think I have implied that static (conventional) truth is an illusion, to be replaced by impermanent, ever--changing, goodness. But maybe I should ask you to explain your comment. I don't like my being a MoQer challenged. It would be better to ask for clarification. ??? >> 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? Maybe in the same way time and space seem to be interdependent, yet non-causal. Does time cause space? Does space cause time? Seems the answer is no. Does that work as an example? >> 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? Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable, and discussing it intellectually does not change that fact. Even my personal experiences with Quality do not indicate a time/space referent. Quality(unpatterned experience & patterned experience.) And yes indeedy, time and space are static patterns of value. >> 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. You know I must agree with a endless circle dancing with itself. If you have stories to tell about Alan Watts on LSD, please do. I've never had LSD and I'm curious about people who have. >> 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? It seems to me that the only way anything can be known is statically, or conventionally. Isn't "the known" the past conceptualized? 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
