Happy Birthday Ham! And many, many more.
On Apr 14, 2010, at 5:32 PM, Ham Priday wrote: > 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. I didn't use the phrase 'interdependent generation'. Come on, Ham, talk about infinite regression, what would be the cause of whatever you claim to be 'first cause'. > 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". You seem to have ignored the 'does not' in front of 'sequence origination'. I am suggesting that there is NO 'cause and effect' implied by 'interdependent origination.' NOT a 'this happens', then 'that happens', but originating simultaneously. > 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. True based on what??? A conceptually constructed old maxim (static pattern) which in turn is supported by other conceptually constructed static patterns of value? > 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. I am not sure what you are suggesting? You've said you've studied Buddhism, well then you must be aware of the two truths: conventional (relational) truth and Ultimate Truth (Emptiness.) I extend these out to static quality and Dynamic Quality. It is my understanding that from the conventional understanding 'interdependent origination' is thought to be 'cause and effect', with an effect having many causes and conditions. The purer understanding from the Ultimate/Emptiness point-of-view is that 'interdependent origination' is non-casual, with even the relationship between conventional reality and Ultimate reality being interdependent. From the Heart Sutra: Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness. --- But I could be very wrong in my interpretation. RMP has said that Quality is the basic substance of reality, that makes it a monism. How it is analogized into patterns is another matter. > >> 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? We both have already agreed that the Buddhist's Emptiness doesn't mean empty. Emptiness represents 'empty of inherent existence'. Many static patterns are applied to Quality, but patterns are not concrete, independent entities. > 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. Quality is experience is existence is reality. > > 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 have no idea what this means. James was very influenced by reading Eastern texts, and rather than reading James's interpretation of a poor translation, I think I'll stick to reading Buddhist's texts directly. Today there are wonderful, in-depth, scholarly translations of very old Pali texts, and it is not a dead philosophy so there are knowledgeable scholars and practitioners to answer questions. RMP has spoken as much about Buddhism as about the American Pragmatists. He has identified himself as a Buddhist. > 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. Ham, I used the relationship between space and time as an example of an interdependent relationship that didn't indicate this causes leads to that effect. Their relationship is non-casual. I didn't suggest that they were a fundamental principal of reality. I DID state that they were static patterns of value. I accept a conventional/relative self and other, but as fully integrated with the Universe and not as separate autonomous entities. >> 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 Again I wish you a very happy birthday!!! 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
