[MD] The Physics of Metaphysics

[MarshaV]

Hey Ham,

I cannot think another thought this evening.  If I am 
able, I will respond tomorrow.

Good night, sleep tight, and don't let the 
bedbugs bite,

Marsha



On Apr 13, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Ham Priday wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 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


 
___