[MD] The MOQ and Death

[Ham Priday]

Dear Marsha [Steve mentioned] --

Previously you said:
> ...there is often something within me that wants to agree with you,
> but I have no clear understanding what you are saying, so I have
> to be satisfied with a wordless agreement, at least on some level,
> some of the time.  But I almost always admire your cool.  It's
> different than Lester Young's cool, but cool just the same.

That "something within you" is what I'm trying to reach, and words alone 
won't do it.
You've read my book, so you should have an advantage over other participants 
here in understanding what my philosophy is all about.  But perhaps I am too 
obtuse in my explications.  In my younger days, I was considered a "square". 
I suppose being seen as "cool" is a step up in the right direction ;-).

> 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 concepts
> seem far, far outside an individual's ability to _know_ .

You are absolutely right.  They are beyond our capacity to know because all 
knowledge come from experience, and we do not--can not--know Absolute Truth 
or experience the Absolute Source.  That's why you turn to Buddhism and 
mystic poets like Rumi whose soothing words and images bolster your 
confidence that everything will come out all right in the end.  But escaping 
from reality doesn't fulfill the "need to know", which is philosophy's 
quest.  And Steve has put his finger on the bottom line of this quest: What 
is to become of us when we cease to be?

Mysticism, Religion, and Mythology have all sought to satisfy man's innate 
"spiritual" needs.  Philosophers, for the most part, have relied on their 
intellect and intuitive insight to answer such ultimate questions.  Are 
their conclusions valid?  Some may be.  Are they confirmable?  No.

A fundamental maxim which may be unique to my philosophy is that the 
individual is a free agent of Value.  The inaccessibility of empirical proof 
for a primary source, the meaning of life, or the transcendence of death 
ensures man's freedom by preventing his choices from being influenced by 
absolute knowledge.

Some will say that it's dodging the bullet, but I'm convinced that man's 
incapacity to "know for certain" is the cognitive principle of an otherwise 
intelligently-designed universe.  That we could never be truly free as 
"all-wise" creatures makes perfect sense to me.  And to rule out the 
possibility of a "value complement" that represents you and me in the 
Oneness of Essence "because we can't prove it" is a serious mistake in my 
opinion.

Does that idea stir something deep within you, Marsha?

Thanks for your interest and candor.

Warmest regards,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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.