[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[John Carl]

Hi Mark,


> [Mark]
> Yes, I think I understand the concept of codependent arising.  If two
> things arise together, before that was there unity, or nothingness?
>


John:  Aha.  Either you don't understand codependent arising, or I don't.
Because in my view it is isolated "before-ness" which is empty of meaning.
There is no "before" the codependent arising of consciousness/valuation
because "before" is a value created by a consciousness.  See?  You're
absolutizing a relativistic concept by saying such a thing.  Reifying, as
Marsha or Nagarjuna would, I believe, point out.

Mark:



> Either way, they are both unity.  So one thing rises into two which
> support each other.  This is only true of one is looking for
> beginning, or underlying nature of underlying nature.  So, the
> dynamics of the yin and yang can be seen for what it is, or one can
> ask how or why.  Both are questions that imply a creative process.
> Sure, one can stop at codependent arising and say that this is enough
> depth.
> >
>

John:

I guess I'm saying more than it's merely "enough".  I'm also saying it's
impossible to go any deeper than that.


>
>
> [Mark]
> My understanding of Emptiness is the emptiness of inherent existence.
> That is that there is no inherent existence, only existence arising
> out of other things.  Therefore, what we think of as the "I" does not
> exist except for relationally.  I think this is what you say.  So, I
> can ask, "what does that mean beyond the words?"


John:  Yes, you grasp what I mean.  But in going "beyond the words" you go
too far for me.  When I say it's language all the way down, I also mean it's
language as far down as I can go, and I can't go any deeper than that.
Mystical apprehensions of non-linguistic reality are all fine and good and I
heartily applaud those who seek such.  But I live in the world of words and
meanings and I see nothing wrong with that.  It's probably a tad simplistic,
but there ya go.  That's me, all over.

Mark:


> By creating a
> meaning, one is unifying the relational existence, and allowing it to
> exist inherently.  In this sense, we can create inherent existence.
> The Tao symbol represents the inherent existence of a codependent
> balance.  So as far as emptiness, this disappears.  The middle way is
> just the middle way, no extremes, no clinging, in my opinion.  No big
> deal to conceptualize, harder to realize.
> >
>


John:  Isn't conceptualization just another word for realization?  How do
they differ?  "We can create inherent existence" - I agree.  Not only can,
but do.


>
> [Mark]
> Again, interdependence is a unifying inherent idea.  It is nothing
> other than interdependent.  Even if it is interdependent
> interdependence, that does not matter because a unifying circle is put
> around the whole thing.  If there is no unity, it would imply that
> concepts cannot exist, and I am pretty sure that I have them.
>

John:

Concepts exist.  Absolutely.  God, for instance, is a concept.  The point of
interdependence is emptiness of isolated, independent existence.  Unity is
also a concept.  A very important one.



> [Mark]
> Logically, the ultimate cause is that one creating the presence of
> interdependence.
>
We rationally think that for there to be
> interdependence something must have caused it.


John:  And there's our trouble, imo.  Or more accurately, a trouble in the
roots of rationality itself.  There is no causation independent of
consciousness.  Causation is just an aspect or tool of consciousness.  And
the codependency we are discussing, is consciousness/value.  Ham's point
about there being a necessity of consciousness for valuation to exist?  I
agree.  However, I also would point out to him (and all who think like him)
that consciousness only exists in the light of valuation.  Without
discriminatory awareness, there is no such thing as being.  See?  That's
codependent arising.

Mark:



> By cycling into
> emptiness, I mean that each thing has a cause before it, so we go all
> the way back until there is nothing.  If there is nothing then, there
> is nothing now, since something does not come from nothing.  So we
> have swapped the words "Everything" for "Nothing", and we are left
> with rhetoric instead of truth, which is what Pirsig states.  It is
> how one creates it, not how one finds it.  Once we realize that our
> sense of intellect and communication and investigation and reality is
> like the growing hum of a bee-hive, then we are free to create and are
> not restricted by things that we feel are true.
>


John:  Hmmm... interesting.  You are taking this in a direction I did not
expect.  I guess that's the value of dialogue!  But since I have
disagreement with your root terms and proposals, I just can't go there with
ya, buddy.  Another way to look at it is that the term "cause" is ultimately
empty of real, independent meaning for when you logically analyze what it
means, the cause of anything is everything - and thus nothing.  We really
mean, "relatively meaningful cause" when we use the term and when going into
such absolutely radical areas, "relatively meaningful" loses all relative
meaninfulness.

Whew!  Sorry about the convoluted formulation.  But you really leave me no
choice.


> [Mark]
> Yes, the concept of codependence is indeed enticing, and we can create
> meaning with it.  But just because it is easy to justify, does not
> mean that it stands alone.
>

John:

Exactly!  Nothing does.  That's what I'm trying to get across here.

(some snipped agreement)



> > 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]
> Of course dissociation from reality is not a good thing.  I do not
> think that Pirsig (as Phaedrus) had any intention of going to the
> hospital for shock treatment.  However, I guess that his estrangement
> was severe enough.  We all like to have meaning and purpose.  Some of
> us have minor mid-life crises, like Camus talks about in the Myth of
> Sisyphus.  The question is:  What was it that Pirsig saw that stripped
> him of all meaning?  Obviously something grew out of a chance comment
> in an English department, but how did it radically change the concept
> of meaning?  This is what I thought about for the first ten years
> after I read the book.  I have been close, but never have fully had
> the floor taken out from under me.  What in your opinion did he see?
>


John:  My take on it, coming from an intensely personal place of my own,
came to me in a realization last night.  It was the realization that there
is a very prominent part of me that sometimes just wants to sit in the
corner, smoke and think and ignore the social consequences of my urine and
my feces.  That I want to be free from social constraints.  That I want to
ignore the demands of social life in the interest of the pursuits of my
intellectual life.  It's a childish rebelliousness perhaps, and not to
indulged if I want to avoid being hauled off to the funny farm, but it's
there and I must deal with it.

Mark:


> I have been trying to explain it, but I am no author.  This is the
> crux of MoQ, much more than all the levels and comparisons to other
> philosophers, or even the need to invoke the sophists as a way of
> explaining it.  Those are all just analogies for a completely
> different view.
>

John:  Hmmm... "author".  What is an author?  Is that the same root meaning
as "authority"?  Just as genius contains the roots of originater - genesis,
so does author seem to convey the act of expressing what is uniquely from
within.  I can say "I'm no author", just like Matt says "I'm no
philosopher".  But he plainly is, and I plainly am and to deny this would be
a lie.

I'm not an author or philosopher worthy of any social affirmation or
respect, but just in my own little world, I am.  And that "I am" is enough
for me.  I guess if it's not enough for Dan, for one instance,  he can just,
as he says, "fuck off".  But if I got anything from the MoQ or Pirisig's
writings, it is this courage to be.  Regardless of whether or not they come
to take me away.  That's what I take from the tale of "The Quality, which he
never betrayed, came to him at last"


> >
> > 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
>
> [Mark]
> I am not sure if I am bouncing.  There has been much discussion on the
> subjective nature of Quality, such as "Quality is experience".  This
> is not the only way to see it.


John:

Right.  I for one, do not.  Quality drives experience, but experience is
all-subjective in the end.  I'm not a big fan of the formulations of radical
empiricism and see that whole "pure experience" thing as nothing but an
intellectual dead-end.  Trying to carve out a tiny slice of time as
metaphysically significant seems to my perception to be nothing but barking
up the wrong tree.

So there's that.

And I'm glad you grant, "other ways of seeing it", as opposed to those
seeking a homogenous approach to the analogies offered; the blind men
arguing for their POV of the elephant;  the finger-pointers who claim
there's only one proper way of signifying the moon.



Mark:


>  The insights of MoQ can unify the
> split by making it completely objective.  This is what Buddhism does,
> by claiming that the subjective does not exist.


John:

Whoa, good buddy.  They certainly don't obviate the subjective by making
objectivity supreme.  Here's a fine example as any for the need of a
codependency explanation.  You can't have either objects or subjects alone
and independent of the other.  All experience is the entanglement between.

Mark:



> In our self-centered
> Western world, we have no idea how this purely objective view can
> exist.  So the unification is possible by removing the subjective
> completely, kill all patterns as it were.  Not literally of course,
> but metaphorically.  A metaphor to remove metaphors, kind of like a
> computer virus that wipes your hard drive.
>

John:

Ewww!  I hate it when that happens.  Even though it never has.  Fortunately
for us mac users, most virus writers focus their energies on the MS world.




> [Mark]
> OK, I see what you mean, intelligence that is like ours, not some
> plasma pulsing or whatever.


John:

Hey!  Don't write off so fast, the hooloovoo, that hyper-intelligent shade
of blue <http://mwillett.org/guide.htm>.  "One day all our websites will be
powered by hooloovoo."

Mark:


> Since we are not all that different from
> the rest of the planet, we can talk of earthly intelligence, that is
> governed by the rules on this earth.
>

John:

However, when speaking of intelligence itself, I think we should include the
conceptualization which is open to non-human intelligence, so that if we
ever encounter it, we won't be blinded by our metaphysical glasses.  Is my
point.




>
> [Mark]
> Thanks for the refresher.  The uncarved block is similar to the
> concept of beginner's mind which is written about by D.T Suzuki in
> terms of Zen.  That is a mind without history or prejudices.  This is
> indeed a goal for Zen students (I have been told).  By having a
> beginner's mind, one is in harmony with the Tao, and does not fight
> it.  It is thinking without thinking, everything is new, even
> memories.  When we have a memory, it happens in the present, and is
> therefore new.  So even remembering is living in the present.  Once we
> realize this, things get much easier.  Nothing changes of course,
> except perhaps our attitude.  If there is any free will at all, it is
> within our attitude.  Oh, glorious world, what a wonderful place this
> is where I can post and discuss with my good trusted friends!  What a
> rush this discussion is!  Thanks John!!


May the force and the hooloovoo be with you!

John