On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:22 AM, Marsha wrote:
I don't think there has to be a primary source.
Interdependent origination does not sequence origination.
I don't know what you mean by "interdependent generation", but I know there
must be a generator.
If one event depends on another, logicians and cosmologists confront a
paradox of infinite regression unless an "initial event" is posited.
The'Big Bang is the cosmologist's first cause. The problem is: In order to
have such a cataclysmic event, there must be energy and mass to produce the
event. Thus, the first cause is the creation of energy and mass.
Now, you deny the need for an originator or creator, yet speak of "sequence
origination." Whenever the word "sequence" comes up in a premise, it
signals that the author is framing it as a process of causality in time.
This is fine when analyzing empirical phenomena, but change (or evolution)
in the time stream cannot be assumed in metaphysics. That's why I prefer
Primary Source to "first cause" or "progenitor", and why I posit Essence as
"immutable".
My point is that however you conceive the dynamics of physical existence --
whether as hierarchical, interdependent, or constant -- its appearance alone
presupposes a fundamental source. It's that old maxim, 'ex nihilo, nihil
fit' -- nothing comes from nothingness. And that's just as true for
metaphysics as the prime number is essential for mathematics.
Earlier, you said, "I could not expect an individual mind to divide, define
or know what is clearly beyond it," explaining that you meant "indivisible
as in monism." But there is no monism in existential reality. Every thing
and event is differentiated and finite in space/time. And that leads us to
the statement you've questioned concerning how you can 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.
How can Quality, which is Mr. Pirsig's fundamental reality, be "empty", yet
lead to a hierarchy of interdependent patterns that we experience as
concrete beingness in space/time? Something is missing in this paradigm.
Pirsig has called his philosophy "radical empiricalism". If this is true,
his concept of reality is limited to the physical universe--except, of
course, for Quality which is his single claim to metaphysics. Pirsig has
equated Quality with (empirical) reality, rather than positing it as the
primary source, so the MOQ is not really a metaphysical ontology.
I asked if you are a "pragmatist", because everything that Pirsig has
postulated relates to the relational universe. You replied:
I don'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. ???
The American philosophers Charles Peirce and William James introduced
philosophical "pragmatism" as the view that truth is to be tested by the
practical consequences of beliefs (e.g., 'praxis' or 'conventional' truth).
Peirce, in particular, rejected Kant's concept of the unknowable
thing-in-itself, regarding logic as the sicnec of philosophy. So, to the
extent that you believe experiential reality is constituted of "quality
patterns", you depart from pragmatism.
I also asked, how does it follow that an interdependent universe is
non-causal?
To which you replied:
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?
No, because space and time are attributes of cognitive experience, rather
than fundamental principles of reality. To you they're all "quality
patterns", so you don't acknowledge this distinction. For the same reason,
you don't acknowledge the fundamental difference between Selfness and
Otherness which is necessary to realize Value. And that impedes your
understanding of the primary dichotomy from which all difference is derived.
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.
One could say that Watts was the Pirsig of the 1940s and '50s. Raised in
England, he graduated with a Masters Degree in Theology from Kings College
intending to become a priest, but became fascinated with Zenism, sprouted a
beard, and came to the U.S. in 1938 as something of a celebrity author. I
read several of his books, including "The Supreme Identity" and "The Taboo
Against Knowing Who You Are", and even heard a couple of his radio lectures.
Watts got involved with Timothy Leary in the Flower Child era, and was never
quite the same afterward. His concept of reality as the "dance of God"
stemmed from this period, as did a book on his hallucinatory experiences.
His philosophical thinking was quite simplistic, as this sample
demonstrates:
"If space is essential to solid it's prefectly obvious then that nothing is
essential to something. If you can't have something without nothing it
means nothing is pretty powerful stuff, because something comes out of it,
blpppp, like that. It's a dogma of Western thought expressed in the Latin
phrase "ex nihilo nihil fit," "out of nothing comes nothing." But that's
not so! Out of nothing comes something!! Now you would say, "Well if
something comes out of nothing there must be some kind of mystery inside
nothing, it must have a secret structure of some kind. I mean, there must
be sort of electrical goings-on." That's the trouble they have about
cosmology. How could this world generate, could it just be out of
free-floating hydrogen? No, it's a much simpler idea than that: it comes
out of real, solid nothing. It's so simple! Look, if you listen, and you
live in a world where there's only sound for a moment, you'll hear every
sound coming out of silence. Where do these sounds come from? They come
out of silence. Suddenly...BOING! And you can accustom yourself to seeing
light doing the same thing. You can open your eyes and see all this world
emerging out of nothing, BOING!...like that, and fading off into the past.
And that's why the future is unknown because the future is zero."
I'm sure you can identify with that. ;-}
Thanks for asking about Watts, Marsha. It gave me something to reminisce
about on my birthday.
Best regards,
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
