[MD] The MOQ and Death

[MarshaV]

On Mar 6, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Ham Priday wrote:

> 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?

What does death have to do with Now?  What if a hurricane hits where I live this summer?  What if my limbs needs to be amputated?  What if Spring never arrives.   Anything you think about death is just imagination.  Take care of what needs to be taken care of now, and don't attach to the other stuff.  On the other hand, I too occasionally practice dying.  Lying in bed, in the Cleopatra position, with arms crossed over my heart,  letting all thought slowly dissolve.  Very peaceful!   But I do think it is good to remember that we don't live in the land of Immortality-R-us; out time is not infinite.   -   You do NOT know why I find Buddhism so compelling, and I'm not going to tell you.  And you do NOT know why I find Rumi's Moon Language so touching, and I'm not going to tell you.   And you do NOT know what a good ending would be for me.  You silly man with your silly projections.  I might, for instance, fear living too long more than dying too early.  I had an Aunt that spent a few years in a group home tied to a wheelchair .  That would make me think dying would be a blessing.  Silly, silly, silly to be concerned with such thoughts.  Maybe I will be concerned during the moments of my death, but who knows, and at this moment, who cares?   


> 
> 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.

What exactly do you "believe" these spiritual needs are?    


> 
> 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.

Be obedient to awareness...  


> 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.  

Not feeling the warmth of agreement...   
    

> That we could never be truly free as "all-wise" creatures makes perfect sense to me.  

Wisdom is definitely something to move towards, though.   


> 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?

That depends on what a sneeze might mean.    


About your book.  I became so upset from disagreeing with some of your underlying premises that I only read through half of it.  Someday I'll get back to it.  Regardless, you seem a scholar, and a gentleman, and a man with much cool.   


Marsha