[MD] self

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Mark --


> First of all, thank you Ham, you are more eloquent than I.

I appreciate the compliment, Mark.  But if I am more eloquent, why do the 
ideas you articulate get more response than mine?  (On second thought, don't 
bother; it's because that devil Ham is misconstruing the MoQ to promote his 
own philosophy.)

> The way in which Marsha uses static/dynamic is indeed prone to
> confusion.  How about this analogy.  The great ocean is deep.  On its
> surface, there are waves which appear and then disappear.  Our life
> here is brief, just another wave, but what is causing our waves lasts
> forever and is an integral part of us.  So in this case, the dynamic
> represents potential (which is similar to your Essence), and our
> existence is the representation of such potential (your negation).
> With an understanding of Quality one can make inroads into a more
> meaningful existence.  In fact, it can change one's whole daily
> behavior and attitude (gumption if you will).  Does your belief in
> your metaphysics impact every moment of your daily life?

Yes, I think belief in a transcendent Essence makes my life more meaningful 
when it comes to understanding the purpose of human existence in terms of 
man's need for spiritual fulfillment.

You have posed the ocean/waves analogy before, and it would be a good 
metaphor for Ultimate Reality/Existence.  Unfortunately, since the "great 
ocean" is static relative to the dynamic "surface waves", it would reverse 
Pirsig's paradigm which makes reality "Dynamic Quality" and its 
ever-changing patterns "static".

> Or, how about this, a book is static, the story it tells is dynamic.
> There is a relationship between the static and the dynamic, and both
> interact like the Yin and the Yang.  Quality is the Circle which
> encompasses, Value is the interface between the static and the
> dynamic.  (don't know if this works quite right, but I will leave it
> in for discussion).  And let's not forget the soul, which is the white
> paper upon which the words of the book are written.  Life plays on
> one's soul like music fills silence.

Again, Mark, I see the "book" as an analog for the immutable Source, and the 
unfolding "story it tells" as dynamic existence.  Also, I see no difference 
between the "circle" of Quality and the "interface" of Value.  (Didn't 
Pirsig equate the two?)  So your analogies are still problematic for me.

> Yes, personal value is relative to the person.  However, what is
> creating that value, exists beyond the person.  You have a formula of
> double negation, I simply call it Quality.

What is creating the value is the relation of the sensible agent (person) to 
the whole (Essence).  I describe Value as "the affinity of the self for its 
estranged Essence".  Negation works the other way; it divides the cognizant 
agent from the essential Source to create difference, thus making possible 
the autonomous realization of a range of finite values.

Thanks for the analogies, Mark, even though they appear to be more useful 
for my ontology than RMP's.

Best,
Ham

>
> Marsha,
> Dialectics.  When Buddha stated there is no self, he is trying to move
> you away from your current belief, not saying that such a static
> concept is the way it is.  This is the power of dialectics, finding
> the middle way.
>
> You have hung on to this ever-changing concept of Quality for some
> time now, I am waiting for the change in your belief since you claim
> to be ever-changing.  The reason that you think things are changing is
> that you are stuck on static quality.  You jump from one static thing
> to another and call that change.  Based on where you are, I can say
> that Change does not exist in Quality.  I would suggest that you
> consider the term "Ever-there" for a short break in your habits.
>
> Quality can not change, since there is no time for it to do so.  That
> is, it exists outside of time.  I will use the following example: All
> that you can experience is the ever-now.  Even if you are having
> memories or planning for the future, that is done in the present.
> Such experience, which is Reality, happens in that timeless place, in
> the moment, not anywhere else, it can't.  In the timeless moment,
> there is no change.  The change you imagine is due to clinging to
> static qualities.  Some things you seem to cling to more than others,
> those are the dangerous ones.
>
> To use time in the analogy, between every moment there is nothing. So,
> where are we between moments?  How is it that you feel continuity in
> this existence?  The Buddhists would say that you are being
> reincarnated at every moment.  Thus your existence is preserved.  Do
> you think this is possible, such reincarnation?  Else-wise, how do you
> explain your seemingly continuous feeling of existence?
>
> Know Thyself, otherwise translated at "that thou art".  I am not sure
> if you have read the book "The Perennial Philosophy" by a guy named
> Aldus Huxley.  If not, give it a read, he can explain this better than
> I.  What Socrates was stating is exactly the same thing that Buddha
> was stating.  Hermes stated it long before either of them.  Buddha's
> tact was to try to destroy the ego.  Such ego is: believing we are our
> thoughts.  Buddha did not try to destroy all the other things we are.
> This "No-Self" is directed at that voice in our heads to tame it.
> Once that is understood, one can still have existence of self, nothing
> changes there.  Living in a world of no-self is like living in a world
> full of robots.
>
> The use of "No-Self" as a technique for awakening was fully developed
> in around 200 AD by Nagarjuna, as you know.  This was not the only
> arrow in Buddha's trigger.  His method for teaching changed depending
> on his student.  But the technique was the same, and was one of
> dialectics.  He would listen, and then present alternatives to counter
> act "false" beliefs.  Socrates was said to have asked continual
> questions, with the same intent.  That is, to educate towards meaning.
>
> Both of these people were just like you and me.  They wanted to
> educate what they saw.  The fact that such teachings have lasted a
> while emphasizes the kernel of a perennial form of thought.  That is,
> a thought that has its roots way beneath the intellect (something that
> I call "deeper"), what some call the mythical.  Our thoughts do not
> just arrive superficially when we are trying to communicate them
> within the social level.  Our thoughts are much more expansive than
> the words which we put to them and are closer to emotions in nature
> (one point for Joe).  On his deathbed, Buddha was said to have
> encouraged his followers to be free from words, for that is an easy
> way to be free and move towards Nirvana.  Of course MoQ states the
> same thing as an underlying theme (static quality).
>
> So next time you present your Ever-Changing Theory, think about it,
> and move past it.
>
> All in my humble opinion, of course.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark