[MD] emptiness

[Ham Priday]

Happy Winter Solstice, Marsha --


> Greetings Ham,
>
> I have both the terms 'value' and 'quality' representing experience.
> I have not attempted to present a cosmology, but an explanation of
> static patterns of value (patterned experience) as I understand them.
> I find their investigation the most revealing.
>
> Reality = Experience(unpatterned/patterned).  Experience, with a
> capital 'E', is unpatterned, and may be accepted as unpatterned or
> patterned.  Humanity it seems, for pragmatic purposes, has evolved
> to function by reliance on patterns.  The pattern labelled 'self',
> upon investigation through mediation, I have come to see as primarily
> a flow of bits and pieces of patterns (conceptual & perceptual).
> I understand the 'self' to be a continuous, experiential processing
> rather than independent entity.
>
> All in my humble opinion, of course.

Well, we'll call it Marsha's ontology or epistemology, instead of cosmology. 
There are still several aspects of it that are problematic for me. 
(Incidentally, Mark has agreed to provide a similar outline of his ontology, 
although apparently he needs more time to compose it.)

You speak of  "parts", "bits" and "pieces" being patterned (presumably by 
the experiencing mind); but you don't say how these fragments originate or 
where they come from.  I assume the patterns themselves are either 
independent of man or "conceived" or perceived through man's experience.  If 
these 'sub-patterns' are "pieces of Quality" (e.g., SQ), do they exist 
independently prior to their assembly into discrete patterns, or do they 
constitute a holistic reality which does the fragmenting?   (Possibly it 
would help if you could provide an example of such a "bit" or "piece".)

Also, if the subjective self is an "experiential process" rather than an 
independent entity, what ties the events of that process together so that 
experience is proprietary to a specific individual?  In other words, how do 
you account for the experiencing subject being unique unto itself -- its own 
psyche so to speak -- without an external organizing agent?   If DQ is the 
source of all this differentiation, why does existence need an experiential 
subject?  Conversely, if Experience is the differentiator, why is "a flow of 
bits and pieces" even necessary?  Sorry Marsha, but the dynamics of this 
experiential process still elude me.

Perhaps the most fundamental question is: What does your meditation reveal 
about the nature of Ultimate Reality?  I know this takes you beyond the 
bounds of differentiated space/time existence; yet, an ontological concept 
isn't complete without a suggested source or cause of experience.  Maybe I'm 
asking too much, but the formula 'Reality = Experience' is sinply 
insufficient to account for the 'what', 'how' and 'why' of our experiential 
reality, let alone Ultimate Reality.  If it's any consolation, Marsha, I 
have the same complaint with regard to RMP's so-called metaphysics.

Kindly keep in mind that I'm not asking any questions that I haven't 
answered for myself in developing the philosophy of Essence.  My answers 
will be forthcoming at the proper time.

Have a merry weekend yourself, whatever you choose to celebrate.

Essentially yours,
Ham