Hi Mark, and a Happy New Year to All --
On Friday, 12/23/2011 at 1:17 AM, Mark "118" <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
Marsha has misconstrued Buddhism as a philosophy founded on nihilism, and
this does an injustice to Pirsig's Quality thesis. I had hoped to see the
promised outline of your ontology over the holidays, which is why this
response is delayed.
The statement you made (to Joe Maurer) raises the question of whether
"things" inherently exist. Your clarification above would appear to exlude
living organisms (i.e., dogs, sunflowers and people) as "conventional
things". If by "conventional" you mean "objectively recognized", I would
argue that all experienced physical entities are conventional. However,
since your examples may be regarded as "subjective" in some sense, perhaps
you feel they don't qualify as conventional objects. Yet, I'm sure you agree
that the body of a dog or human exists, as does a flowering plant. Why you
insist that these entities do not exist "conventionally" eludes me.
Existence is a conventional system in that everything appearing in it is
accepted as "real" by convention. Whether existence is an "inherent"
property or attribute of the object itself is another question which you
haven't addressed. Is life an inherent property of the biological organism?
Apparently not, for the carcass of a dead dog or man remains in the
conventional world for some time before decomposing, and the plucked flowers
you present to your wife or friend are no longer self-sustaining (live)
plants.
I'd be interested to know why you believe living entitites are "uniquely
unconventional" as opposed to non-living objects, and how you defend the
proposition that life (or subjectivity) is inherent to the particular
organism rather than to its biological nature. Hopefully this information
will be included in the forthcoming outline of your philosophy.
Thanks, Mark, and enjoy the holiday,
Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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
