[MD] The MOQ and Death

[MarshaV]

On Mar 6, 2010, at 5:17 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> On Mar 6, 2010, at 4:04 AM, Ham Priday wrote:
> 
>> Steve, Andre, and Marsha --
>> 
>> First, I must apologize to Steve for inadvertently pushing the 'send' button before signing off my message of 3/5.  Since then, Bodvar, Andre, and Marsha have added their thoughts.  (Bo is still pushing the 'Intellect' button and is so obsessed with the inadequacies of SOM and "social level value" that he has missed the point of Steve's quest entirely.)
>> 
>> Next, I have to correct Andre's interpretation of 'Essence' which led him to this complaint:
>> 
>>> There is not a 'thing' in the universe that is not linked in some way
>>> to something else in the universe. There is nothing that has an
>>> independent 'essence' ( which is something that Ham needs to wake up
>>> to). There is no independent existence called tree, mountain, Andre,
>>> Steve, Pirsig. We have all dependently arisen. 'We' were not born at a
>>> certain point in time and within a certain point in space. So if we
>>> have not been born, how can we speak of dying? As if being born and
>>> dying are separate, independent, essential processes within something
>>> called 'living' in between.
>> 
>> Andre, if you will read what I said more carefully, you'll see that it is mostly in accord with what you have stated.  I don't have to "wake up to" the fact that there is only one Absolute Essence, since that's the foundation of my philosophy, and I have always maintained that nothing else has an independent essence.  That's why the self of man is a negate (nothingness) and is linked to value by his/her sensibility.   Also, everything in the universe is "linked in some way to something else in the universe."  That's what it means to say that existence is a "relational system".  We are all "dependent" on otherness (essential value) for our existence.  As I said: "Everything the self depends on for existence--a functioning physical body, self-awareness, differentiated beingness, and an ordered relational world--is 'borrowed' from otherness."
>> 
>> I see no inconsistency in the reality of existential birth and Gautama's phrase "we have all dependently arisen."  However, I don't agree with your assertion that "were not born at a certain point in time ...and space," or your suggestion that we have not even been born!  You are talking from an abstract metaphysical perspective, whereas we exist in a relational universe.  It's one thing to speculate that birth and death "don't count" in the overall scheme of things, but quite another to dismiss the fact that in a space/time world these events mark the beginning and end of our existence.
>> 
>> Finally, to dear Marsha who "can only agree with Andre's words [but]...can agree with your words too, but only in a negated way," I ask two questions: Where do we disagree, and how can one agree "in a negated way"?  That sounds contradictory to me.  If the words Andre uses are more understandable to you, then by all means embrace them.  The koans and teachings of the mystics may help to sharpen our introspection but I find them confusing as metaphysical premises.  Andre's notion that birth and death are not processes of the life-experience, for example, is more of an impediment than a clarification of the nature of existence.
> 
> Greetings Ham,
> 
> I no longer recognized a clear disagreement, but for a few tiny points.  One point, there seems no need to imagine a primary source, and a second point is to imagine a purpose is not necessary.  Both seem concepts seem far, far outside an individual's ability to _know_ .   I'm not so sure I agree with the sets of opposites either.  Sometimes there are opposites, but other times not.   Unless, of course, you are talking about opposite-from-non-whatever.  I love the static pattern of value as a double negative because it can include all related perceptual and conceptual experience.  And then, of course, there's the fact that seer and the seen appear only when there is seeing; the experience 'seeing' comes first, then an 'I' seeing 'that'.    Only the seeing is a fact, while the seer and the seen are doubtful.  Words are failing me...       
> 
> Birth, death and self are static patterns of value - empty, relative truths.  Dress them up with words of fear and/or beauty, but they are still static pattern of value.  That doesn't diminish them, but makes more clear their nature which is beyond (maybe there's a better word than beyond) words and form.    A pediment to one individual, crystal clear to another individual:  relative, relative, relative...    
> 
> But it is true that often when I read your posts, something deep within agrees with what you've written.  My head will be nodding in agreement.  And often I want to reply, but I cannot find the words to explain the agreement.   'Tis a puzzlement.      
> 
> 


p.s.  Ham, when I wrote I can only agree with Andre's words, I didn't mean I couldn't agree with anyone else's words, but that what Andre wrote pretty much matched my own perspective and I couldn't add anything of additional value.



> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> But Steve's topic is literally "a life and death matter", and I'm pleased to see it getting some attention.
>> 
>> 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


 
___