Hi Ham, I am attempting as best I can to not make Marsha feel put upon. You know my opinion, so I can understand why you are confused.
Two things that inherently exist? How about a dog and a sunflower. I can provide more if you want, for example you exist inherently, believe it or not. There is nothing conventional about these things, they are all uniquely unconventional. Show me something conventional and I will show you a mistake. I have been where you are and back. Trust me. Sent laboriously from an iPhone, Mark On Dec 22, 2011, at 9:34 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greetings, Mark and Marsha -- > > > Mark [to Joe]: >> There are plenty of things that do inherently exist. There is nothing >> conventional about them, in fact they are unconventional since they >> do exist in a world where there is no inherent existence.. ... >> >> So, Marsha is correct with her denial of inherent existence. >> I believe she has got it. I believe it comes from her static pattern of >> life history. Through the use of this she can form static patterns >> which are conventional. This leads to great insight which can be >> applied to the nature of what is. Marsha is unconventionally >> conventional, which I consider high praise. She has formed a very >> good belief which I am learning from. The patterns which make me >> are adjusting in a good way as the result of their causes. >> It brings me great peace. > > Mark, unless my literal interpretion of what you said is wrong, the lead > statements in these two paragraphs contradict each other. Either things DO > inherently exist or they don't. Can you give me an example or two from the > "plenty of things" for which you claim inherent existence, and explain to me > why they are not "conventional" in the sense that Marsha uses that term? > > Also, why do you laud the formation of static patterns as "leading to great > insight" when that's how we all experience the "reality" of differentiated > existence? And what, pray tell, is the great insight this experience has > given us? Analogies, similes, conventions, and patterns are useful > dialectical devices, but they tell us nothing about the nature of Ultimate > Reality and how we relate to it. > > I intend to provide (yet another!) outline of my own ontology, once I feel > I've comprehended yours and Marsha's. Meantime, I'm not letting the cat out > of the bag when I say that, for me, experiential existence IS "conventional > reality". Every last bit of it. True Reality is not an existent, nor is it > composed of differentiated entities. We do not experience this ultimate > Truth; we can only conjecture about it. That is the purpose of metaphysics > as well as the foundation of any belief system, whether "good" or "bad". > > 'Nuff said for now. I leave you both with my very best wishes for a joyous > and spiritually fulfilling holiday. > > 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 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
