[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[John Carl]

Hello Mark,

Yes, codependent arising, whatever that means, endless cycling into
> emptiness without beginning.


I don't understand "cycling into emptiness without beginning".  What I mean
by codependent arising is two or more things which cannot exist without each
other.  In such a case, neither could be fundamental to the other, because
they are both fundamental to each other.

A wiki search reveals this:

The Madhyamaka concept of emptiness is often explained through the related
concept of interdependence. This is in contrast to independence, that
phenomena arise of their own accord, independent of causes and conditions.
Although a common way to think about emptiness, it is a conceptual way of
talking about it—to lead a student closer to the non-conceptual wisdom of
the ultimate truth—and it would not withstand analysis as an ultimate view.
In the first chapter of the *Mulmadhyamakakarika*, Nagarjuna provides
arguments that even causes and conditions are empty of inherent existence or
essence. This analogy, however, connects the conclusion of the Middle Way
tenets with the codependent origination teachings of the first turning.

The analogy to interdependence is considered helpful for students, and is
presented in the famous ninth chapter of
Shantideva<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shantideva>'s
Bodhicharyavatara <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhicharyavatara>, as well
as by modern writers like Thich Nhat
Hanh<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Nhat_Hanh>who, in
*The Heart of Understanding*, discusses the Heart
Sutra<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_Sutra>in terms of
interdependence.

In this analogy, there is no first or ultimate cause for anything that
occurs. Instead, all things are dependent on innumerable causes and
conditions that are themselves dependent on innumerable causes and
conditions. The interdependence of all phenomena, including the self, is a
helpful way to undermine mistaken views about inherence, or that one's self
is inherently existent. It is also a helpful way to discuss Mahayana
teachings on motivation, compassion, and ethics. The comparison to
interdependence has produced recent discussion comparing Mahayana ethics to
environmental ethics.
------

I'd also add the analogy of the biological sciences, which reveal this
co-dependence in all of evolutionary development and it is this fundamental
truth which I say lies at the heart of all being:

A 2007 study conducted by the National Science Foundation found that
biodiversity and genetic diversity are codependent—that diversity among
species requires diversity within a species, and vice versa. "If any one
type is removed from the system, the cycle can break down, and the community
becomes dominated by a single species."

Nagarjuna's idea that "even causes and conditions are empty of inherent
existence or essence." sounds very much like a formulation that would
irritate Ham, and delight Marsha, and thus it seems to me that I'm picking
sides in an old argument when I embrace this doctrine.  And yet, it does
make sense to me for I cannot see any other way to explain the fact that
without consciousness there can be any value, and without value there can be
no consciousness.   They are either the same thing, or aspects of the same
thing.


Mark:


>  I find that a good way to dismiss the
> concept of source and move on.  However, what I am trying to impart is
> a basic premise of Quality, that is often lost in this Western
> Dialectic approach that is taken in this forum.  The Taoist
> perspective is a holistic view which does indeed impart meaning, but
> does not suite a discussion well, due to its forms of analogy.


John:

Really?  How so?  For I believe the analogy I offered of evolution - Nature
itself, is the root of all our analogies and this nature is rife with
codependent arisings of all kinds.  If there is no prey, there will be no
predator.  If there are no predators, the prey will not evolve, improve and
will eventually eat itself out of existence.  A codependency that is easy to
understand and demonstrate.

Mark:


> It
> goes more for the right side of the brain than the left, if you will.
>


John:

Ah, well then.  That's my bag, no doubt about it.

Mark:

My present approach is to convey the upending of Truth with Quality,
> which is what lead Pirsig to his complete dissociation from reality,
> and, which he came back to relate in ZMM.



John:

Do you think dissociation from reality is a good thing Mark?  I would hope
that any belief system or teaching would get us into closer relationship
with reality.

Mark:



> So, for the purposes of
> this post, I am exploring the differences between an objective and
> subjective perspective of Value.  The objective view is: what we sense
> as value, is a human perception of a larger Value.  We get the
> mini-human values, which we say are ours, but are only appearances of
> Value which exists without us.  The subjective would be, of course,
> that value is personal, and due to our interaction with that outside.
> It is the interplay between ourselves and the outside, which is felt,
> isolated, within, perhaps by the soul, or whatever one can imagine as
> the final feeler.
>

John:

I'm not sure I grasp what you're getting at here, but to my quick read, it
sounds like you're bouncing back and forth between the horns of that angry
bull.  The insights of the MoQ are supposed to unify and harmonize the
subjective/objective split



> >
> >>
> > John:
> >
> > I would like to address both of you on the issue of "conscious agent" and
> > "man" with the question, is it at all possible that intelligent life
> exists
> > somewhere outside of humanity's experience?
>



>
> [Mark]
> I am not sure if you mean intelligent life as we as humans would
> define it.  We are about 2 percent different from the apes
> (genetically), yet we feel we are way superior in intelligence.  So,
> something 10% different from us, would be outside our imagination.
> For all we know, this could be a river.  So, I think we are speaking
> of human truths.


John:

Well, maybe I read too much science fiction as a lad, but I was referring to
E.T.  intelligence.  Aliens from another planet, if you will.  Even the Pope
seems to think we should include their possible being in his religion.  I
would certainly not want to exclude them from our philosophies.  So I think
rather we should be speaking, universal truths rather than merely
humanistic.


> [Mark]
> Yes, good book.  I read it many years ago, along with its Piglet
> counterpart (Te of Piglet I think).  I enjoyed it at the time, and
> should reread it now that I am a little older.  I would like to hear
> more about the uncarved block as it relates to MoQ (or as it relates
> to anything for that matter).  We do tend to make things much more
> complicated than they are, mainly because we are so important.
>

John:

Some of us less so than others, obviously.  I shall quote for you, and you
will understand how I feel about the matter.

"The essence of the principle of the Uncarved Block is that things in their
original simplicity contain their own natural power, power that is easily
spoiled and lost when that simplicity is changed.... This basic Taoist
principle applies not only things in their natural beauty and function, but
to people as well.  Or Bears.  (Or coyotes) ... but no matter how he may
seem to others, especially to those fooled by appearances, Pooh, the
Uncarved Block, is able to accomplish what does because he is simpleminded.
As any old Taoist walking out of the woods can tell you, simpleminded does
not necessarily mean stupid.  It's rather significant that the Taoist ideal
is that of the still, calm reflecting "mirror-mind" of the Uncarved Block."