[MD] Nagarjuna and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Hi Marsha --

> I think claiming the tetralemma to be a poetic device may represent a
> cultural bias rather than a fair assessment; likewise for some to dismiss
> Buddhism because of the concept of 'reincarnation' or 'karma' is also
> rather foolish.

It's hardly possible to accept all forms of Eastern mysticism, along with 
Pirsig's MoQ, into one's personal philosophy.  I get the impression that you 
are an eclectic reader, picking up a story here, a koan there, and some 
pretty prose somewhere else, with the hope of incorporating all these ideas 
in your worldview.  The net result is an ambiguity of beliefs which you 
express when you quote the Tetralemma saying "the self both exists and does 
not exist," or when you claim that everything is analogy.  Even your basic 
"understanding" of empirical reality is expressed as "static patterns of 
value, ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent ....that 
pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable 
pattern."  What conception of reality can you possibly draw from such 
verbiage?  One begins to wonder if anything is "real" in your life.

> What you may be calling "conscious locus" I recognize as the
> "silent witness" from meditating.  I sometimes call it "awareness",
> which seems a better term within the mindfulness experience.
> This is why I find an attraction to some of your posts.  I've often
> wanted to ask if your Essentialism isn't more compatible with
> Hindu philosophy with its Brahman and Atman.

Marsha, I haven't researched Hinduism or Buddhism for a long time, and I 
tend to put their meditative rituals and aphorisms in a class with New Age 
spiritualism, astrology, and belief in ghostly apparations.  Unlike you, I 
do not feel the need to align myself with an author simply because he/she 
writes pleasant-sounding euphemisms.  Philosophy is not an art form, and 
some discrimination must be exercised when considering what an "authority" 
wants you to believe.

The MDers can't even agree on what Pirsig means most of the time, so how can 
we expect to embrace concepts that are foreign to the MoQ?   As one who is 
on "the other side" of this issue, I can appreciate the reluctance to 
consider Essentialism as a valuistic philosophy on its own merits.  This is 
why I dislike having my concepts compared with the ideas of Plato, 
Descartes, Nagarjuna, Dennett, or even Pirsig, for that matter, although 
it's the price of admission here.

> The quote from Anthony's Ph.D. thesis fits my perspective completely;
> I have always felt the MoQ to be a bridge between West and East.
> I suppose that's why I was immediately attracted to the ideas within
> ZAMM.  I had become frustrated with both Eastern and Western
> philosophy, and RMP offered a perfect doorway to a better understanding
> of both, and the telling was quite beautiful.

I understand where you're coming from, Marsha, and it's not much different 
from the rest of us.
One can see the animus toward religion and theism in this forum, which I 
suspect is a rebellion against being forced to attend church or chant 
prayers as a child.  Yet, it must be recognized that religion is a universal 
answer to man's need for spiritual fulfillment.  The dogma of religion is a 
placebo for what cannot otherwise be satisfied -- the yearning for Truth 
which is denied to man..
That's why we have to suffer through the dialectics of philosophy and the 
confusion of incompatible thoughts: it's our only alternative..

> My mother often quoted my Oma saying "We are too soon stupid,
> and too late smart."  -  I have the deepest respect for you, and have
> in the last few years felt more agreement with you than difference.
> I chalk up some, though not all, of our differences to terminology.
> Well, I think some of your adjectives are unnecessary, and proposing
> a purpose is unprovable speculation.  Regardless, I do not doubt for
> one moment your sincerity or the value of your valuistic approach to this 
> list.

Well, thank you for this kindness, Marsha.  I would like to believe I offer 
something of value to this august body, and it's nice to be appreciated. 
I'll have to modify my use of adjectives henceforth ... I didn't realize 
they were getting in the way.  As for life's "purpose", I never posit a a 
final answer but only suggest what I believe is the most plausible one.

"Within itself the soul is free, innocent of all instrumentalities and 
ideas."  -- [Meister Eckhart]

Best,
Ham