[MD] The Physics of Metaphysics

[Ham Priday]

On Apr 13, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Marsha V wrote:


> This has been on my mind since this morning, so
> forgive me if I seem to respond too quickly.

No problem.  I'm still on line, so there's nothing to forgive.

> I agree with you that the Buddhist's Emptiness does not
> represent a void or empty space.

Good.

> I read somewhere that the choice of Ultimate over Absolute
> was to indicate there was nothing concrete being implied.

Nothing concrete is implied, unless you consider "absolute" a concrete 
atttribute.

I generally use "ultimate" in reference to Reality and "absolute" in 
reference to finitude.  Absolute, I think, also implies "unconditional'; 
that is, free of relational conditions such as birth and death, dependency, 
evolution, and otherness.  There has to be a primary source for anything to 
exist or be created.  Essence, for me, is that "uncreated, eternal" Source.

> I could not expect an individual mind to divide, define or know
> what is clearly beyond it.

You said "to divide".  Did you mean to say "to divine", as in theorize?  If 
so, why would you not expect a philosopher to divine an uncreated source for 
the created universe?  Isn't that what an ontogeny is?

> Conscious agent versus a self?  Maybe a consideration for another day.

Nothing to be concerned about.  "Agent" is the functional role of the 
individual; "self" is the individual's identity.  For me, the terms are 
synonomous.

 [Marsha, previously]:
> I understand myself to be the flow of ever-changing, interdependent,
> impermanent organic, biological, social, and intellectual patterns.

[Ham]:
> Such a collection of ephemera does indeed suggest "emptiness"...

[Marsha]:
> That would be empty of independent existence.

Hmm.  But you said above that the patterns are "interdependent".  That means 
everything depends on everything else.  Even without "things", that's a 
cacophony, not an ordered universe.

[Ham continues}:
> yet there is no cause or progenitor implied.

[Marsha]:
> Conventionally both are implied, but no truth beyond their pragmatic
> existence.

Does this mean you restrict your understanding to pragmatic truth?  If so, 
how can you be an MoQist?

> Causation is the conventional point-of-view.  With Quality, if
> Quality is the same as Emptiness, there is interdependency
> which is non-causal.

Any system -- even a hierarchy -- is not immune from cause.  How does it 
follow that an interdependent universe is non-causal?

> I think we must keep separate 'after experience judgments' from
> 'immediate experience value'.  Measurement pulls us into the realm
> of static patterns, or conventional reality.

It was Mr. Pirsig who posited Quality = Reality.  I am only pointing out 
that Quality is invalid without a qualitative referent.  "After" 
vs."immediate", by the way, also pulls us into the time dimension of 
experiential reality.  Isn't space/time a static pattern, too?

> What builds conceptual knowledge but patterns of experience?
> What a game!!!

The way you describe your cosmogeny, it's an endless circle dancing with 
itself.  It reminds me of Alan Watts on LSD.

> I like the idea of approaching Ultimate Truth by discovering what is 
> false,
> and I know I sound like broken record, but it is why I appreciate: not 
> this,
> not that.

If you cannot know what is true, how can you know what is false?

Essentially speaking,
Ham