[MD] The Physics of Metaphysics

[Ham Priday]

Dear Marsha --


Thanks for your kind birthday wishes.

I'm beginning to see our disagreement as more of a semantic problem than a 
conceptual contradiction.  For the sake of clarity, let me try to rephrase 
the concept in words we both understand.

> I don't think there has to be a primary source.
> Interdependent origination does not sequence origination.
>
> I am suggesting that there is NO 'cause and effect' implied by
> 'interdependent  origination.'  NOT a 'this happens', then 'that
> happens', but originating simultaneously.
>
> I didn't use the phrase 'interdependent generation'.  Come on, Ham,
> talk about infinite regression, what would be the cause of whatever
> you claim to be 'first cause'.

I'll let that first statement pass for the moment, as you seem to be saying 
that existence is non-sequential and "originates simultaneously", or what I 
would call "spontaneously".

FYI, the term Primary (Prime) Source refers to an "eternal" Absolute that 
has no beginning or end.  It stands to reason that the prime or ultimate 
source is not subject to the conditional limitations of finitude. 
Therefore, I have posited Essence as the "Uncreated Source".  Essence is the 
"first cause" only from the time perspective of human reasoning.  From the 
non-causal metaphysical perspective, creation is not a "process" but a 
constant principle of the essential Source.  (That eliminates the infinite 
regression paradox.)

> It is my understanding that from the conventional understanding
> 'interdependent origination' is thought to be 'cause and effect',
> with an effect having many causes and conditions.  The purer
> understanding from the Ultimate/Emptiness point-of-view is that
> 'interdependent origination' is non-casual, with even the relationship
> between conventional reality and Ultimate reality being interdependent.
> From the Heart Sutra: Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness.  --- 
> But I could be very wrong in my interpretation.

Okay, I was not aware of this definition.  So, what I am calling "process in 
time and space"
you are calling "interdependent origination".  Both terms, then, refer to 
existence as experienced.

> RMP has said that Quality is the basic substance of reality,
> that makes it a monism.  How it is analogized into patterns
> is another matter.

Although I don't like the term "substance" in this context, and would much 
prefer that he had used "Value" instead of Quality, I accept the concept 
that Value is the "nature" of experiential reality (i.e,., Existence). 
This, of course, does not make Pirsig's Quality the "creator" or ultimate 
"source" of Reality, although it is implied in the MOQ and probably inferred 
by many here.

> James was very influenced by reading Eastern texts, and rather than
> reading James's interpretation of a poor translation, I think I'll stick 
> to
> reading Buddhist's texts directly.  Today there are wonderful, in-depth,
> scholarly translations of very old Pali texts, and it is not a dead 
> philosophy
> so there are knowledgeable scholars and practitioners to answer questions.
> RMP has spoken as much about Buddhism as about the American
> Pragmatists.  He has identified himself as a Buddhist.

I'll accept that profile, despite the fact that the MOQ has been promoted by 
several in this forum as an example of "radical empiricism", with William 
James and other pragmatists cited as the founders of this philosophical 
approach.  (I'm surprised that you haven't been involved in those 
discussions.)

> Ham, I used the relationship between space and time as an example
> of an interdependent relationship that didn't indicate this causes leads
> to that effect.  Their relationship is non-casual.  I didn't suggest that
> they were a fundamental principal of reality.  I DID state that they were
> static patterns of value.
>
> I accept a conventional/relative self and other, but as fully integrated
> with the Universe and not as separate autonomous entities.

This is where we still have a disagreement.  I do not believe that the 
individual self is "fully integrated with the Universe".  I do, however, 
believe that the order and attributes of the universe are integrated in the 
experiential awareness of the individual.  To translate this in your terms, 
the individual "patterns" Essential Value into the universal order he/she 
experiences.  In this way, we "actualize" objective reality (existence) into 
discrete phemonena which constitute our "being-in-the-world".  "Existing" is 
an illusion that we all share in common.  But this is because we are all 
estranged from the Essential Source whose Value we seek to reclaim in the 
life-experience.

I don't know if this ontology is at all compatible with Buddhism, but it 
isn't exposited in Pisig's philosophy, and I have yet to see it expressed in 
some other philosopher's thesis.  While I've found elements that parallel my 
concepts in the writings of Plotinus, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, and a few 
lesser known authors, no one has put it together as a cogent metaphysical 
ontology.

But maybe this is the year I'll discover my philosophical soul-mate ;-)

Thanks again, Marsha.

Essentially yours,
Ham