[MD] Ham thinks the MOQ is a form of phenomenalism

[Ham Priday]

Hello S.A.


[Mark says to Ham]
> Yes, i do feel progress is being blocked.
> Take my statement above? You've not tackled it. We
> can't make progress if you ignore my points.

> Mark, Ham has done that many times in the past.
> He has a habit of not focusing upon points being made.
> His essence thesis is narrow in scope and has a
> difficult time shining light after awhile.  Usually he
> ends up just saying so and so is being rhetorical, and
> he won't bother answering questions or commenting upon
> statements anymore.  His thesis is probably getting
> frustrated trying to account for many happenings upon
> this earth.

My thesis might be getting frustrated but I'm not.  "Happenings upon the
earth" occur constantly, and always have, but commenting on them does not
happen to be my philosophical purpose.

I am curious, however, as to why you complain to Mark about me.  If you feel
I haven't addressed YOUR questions adequately, let's discuss them directly.

> Yet, I can say that death ends up killing
> everything.  So maybe everything, even Ham's thesis,
> must end up just getting rid of everything, as Ham's
> thesis seems to have rid society and evolution
> already.

This Essentialism must be pretty potent stuff if I've managed to get rid of
society and evolution so quickly!  I don't know about evolution, but I'll
have to go outside tomorrow and see if there's any society left.  Remind me
to provide a full report.

> Maybe he's way ahead in the understanding of
> this universe.  In a way, I'm being serious, no joke.
> Death ends up ridding societies, and what of evolution
> in the face of death?  So maybe there's more to
> everything than just this small inclusion called
> evolution when one contemplates a Path that includes
> Death.

Surely in your studies of Buddhism, the dharmakaya light, and Joseph
Campbell, you've run across ideas pertaining to death.  Death is an
empirical fact of human existence.  How can you NOT include it in your
philosophical perspective?

Personally, I believe existence is about living; but I'm well aware that
each of us also has to die.  I was raised in the Christian culture where
people don't concern themselves much about dying.  One of Jesus's least
quoted commandments was: "Let the dead bury the dead."  My father and mother
both willed their corpses to a hospital for medical research, and neither
was buried in a cemetery or had a tombstone to mark the burial place.  But
many would view that as callous and disrespectful to the deceased.

For example, I just returned from Long Island where my brother-in-law was
buried last year.  Ed was Jewish, and I know he was buried well because I
and a couple of dozen others threw dirt on his grave at the funeral.  So I
never expected to return to the cemetery again this year, but it is Jewish
custom to dedicate the tombstone at an unveiling ceremony a year following
the burial.  (For purposes of convenience, my inlaws decided to move the
date up a month.)

Now if death is such an important part of life that friends and relatives
are expected to attend two ceremonies to commemorate one beloved person's
passing, I would say that it is a phenomenon worthy of philosophical
exploration.  Only a fool thinks he will live forever.  If philosophy is to
have any meaning for man, the natural events of birth, life, and death must
be accounted for in its ontology.  You and Mark concern yourselves with
biological and societal evolution; yet these processes were going on long
before you were born and will not be affected by your demise.

On the other hand, only two or three generations ago, you didn't exist, and
in less time than that you will again cease to exist.  What do we make of
that?  It's understandable that people would prefer not to dwell on it.  But
can you honestly say that the termination of life is any less important or
significant to you than the formation of the earth's land masses, the
genealogy of the duck-billed platypus, or the history of Western
Civilization?   Sure you can say that the individual self, the proprietary
"ego", the infamous "I", amounts to nothing in relation to the infinite
universe.  But I'll wager that if you could be convinced that some "part" of
you
transcends this finite existence, the life you live today would take on far
more value.  This is what I think a personal philosophy should aim for.

Thanks for tryin',
--Ham