Dear Marsha --
Thanks for your kind birthday wishes.
I'm beginning to see our disagreement as more of a semantic problem than a
conceptual contradiction. For the sake of clarity, let me try to rephrase
the concept in words we both understand.
I don't think there has to be a primary source.
Interdependent origination does not 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.
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'.
I'll let that first statement pass for the moment, as you seem to be saying
that existence is non-sequential and "originates simultaneously", or what I
would call "spontaneously".
FYI, the term Primary (Prime) Source refers to an "eternal" Absolute that
has no beginning or end. It stands to reason that the prime or ultimate
source is not subject to the conditional limitations of finitude.
Therefore, I have posited Essence as the "Uncreated Source". Essence is the
"first cause" only from the time perspective of human reasoning. From the
non-causal metaphysical perspective, creation is not a "process" but a
constant principle of the essential Source. (That eliminates the infinite
regression paradox.)
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.
Okay, I was not aware of this definition. So, what I am calling "process in
time and space"
you are calling "interdependent origination". Both terms, then, refer to
existence as experienced.
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.
Although I don't like the term "substance" in this context, and would much
prefer that he had used "Value" instead of Quality, I accept the concept
that Value is the "nature" of experiential reality (i.e,., Existence).
This, of course, does not make Pirsig's Quality the "creator" or ultimate
"source" of Reality, although it is implied in the MOQ and probably inferred
by many here.
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'll accept that profile, despite the fact that the MOQ has been promoted by
several in this forum as an example of "radical empiricism", with William
James and other pragmatists cited as the founders of this philosophical
approach. (I'm surprised that you haven't been involved in those
discussions.)
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.
This is where we still have a disagreement. I do not believe that the
individual self is "fully integrated with the Universe". I do, however,
believe that the order and attributes of the universe are integrated in the
experiential awareness of the individual. To translate this in your terms,
the individual "patterns" Essential Value into the universal order he/she
experiences. In this way, we "actualize" objective reality (existence) into
discrete phemonena which constitute our "being-in-the-world". "Existing" is
an illusion that we all share in common. But this is because we are all
estranged from the Essential Source whose Value we seek to reclaim in the
life-experience.
I don't know if this ontology is at all compatible with Buddhism, but it
isn't exposited in Pisig's philosophy, and I have yet to see it expressed in
some other philosopher's thesis. While I've found elements that parallel my
concepts in the writings of Plotinus, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, and a few
lesser known authors, no one has put it together as a cogent metaphysical
ontology.
But maybe this is the year I'll discover my philosophical soul-mate ;-)
Thanks again, Marsha.
Essentially yours,
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
