[MD] emptiness

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark, and a Happy New Year to All --

On Friday, 12/23/2011 at 1:17 AM, Mark "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ham,
> I am attempting as best I can to not make Marsha feel put upon.
> You know my opinion, so I can understand why you are confused.
>
> Two things that inherently exist?  How about a dog and a sunflower.
> I can provide more if you want, for example you exist inherently,
> believe it or not.  There is nothing conventional about these things,
> they are all uniquely unconventional.  Show me something
> conventional and I will show you a mistake.  I have been where
> you are and back.  Trust me.

Marsha has misconstrued Buddhism as a philosophy founded on nihilism, and 
this does an injustice to Pirsig's Quality thesis.  I had hoped to see the 
promised outline of your ontology over the holidays, which is why this 
response is delayed.

The statement you made (to Joe Maurer) raises the question of whether 
"things" inherently exist. Your clarification above would appear to exlude 
living organisms (i.e., dogs, sunflowers and people) as "conventional 
things".  If by "conventional" you mean "objectively recognized", I would 
argue that all experienced physical entities are conventional.  However, 
since your examples may be regarded as "subjective" in some sense, perhaps 
you feel they don't qualify as conventional objects. Yet, I'm sure you agree 
that the body of a dog or human exists, as does a flowering plant.  Why you 
insist that these entities do not exist "conventionally" eludes me.

Existence is a conventional system in that everything appearing in it is 
accepted as "real" by convention.  Whether existence is an "inherent" 
property or attribute of the object itself is another question which you 
haven't addressed.  Is life an inherent property of the biological organism? 
Apparently not, for the carcass of a dead dog or man remains in the 
conventional world for some time before decomposing, and the plucked flowers 
you present to your wife or friend are no longer self-sustaining (live) 
plants.

I'd be interested to know why you believe living entitites are "uniquely 
unconventional" as opposed to non-living objects, and how you defend the 
proposition that life (or subjectivity) is inherent to the particular 
organism rather than to its biological nature.  Hopefully this information 
will be included in the forthcoming outline of your philosophy.

Thanks, Mark, and enjoy the holiday,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
> Mark
>
> On Dec 22, 2011, at 9:34 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Greetings, Mark and Marsha --
>>
>>
>> Mark [to Joe]:
>>> There are plenty of things that do inherently exist.  There is nothing
>>> conventional about them, in fact they are unconventional since they
>>> do exist in a world where there is no inherent existence.. ...
>>>
>>> So, Marsha is correct with her denial of inherent existence.
>>> I believe she has got it.  I believe it comes from her static pattern of
>>> life history.  Through the use of this she can form static patterns
>>> which are conventional.  This leads to great insight which can be
>>> applied to the nature of what is.  Marsha is unconventionally
>>> conventional, which I consider high praise.  She has formed a very
>>> good belief  which I am learning from.  The patterns which make me
>>> are adjusting in a good way as the result of their causes.
>>> It brings me great peace.
>>
>> Mark, unless my literal interpretion of what you said is wrong, the lead 
>> statements in these two paragraphs contradict each other.  Either things 
>> DO inherently exist or they don't.  Can you give me an example or two 
>> from the "plenty of things" for which you claim inherent existence, and 
>> explain to me why they are not "conventional" in the sense that Marsha 
>> uses that term?
>>
>> Also, why do you laud the formation of static patterns as "leading to 
>> great insight" when that's how we all experience the "reality" of 
>> differentiated existence?  And what, pray tell, is the great insight this 
>> experience has given us?   Analogies, similes, conventions, and patterns 
>> are useful dialectical devices, but they tell us nothing about the nature 
>> of Ultimate Reality and how we relate to it.
>>
>> I intend to provide (yet another!) outline of my own ontology, once I 
>> feel I've comprehended yours and Marsha's.  Meantime, I'm not letting the 
>> cat out of the bag when I say that, for me, experiential existence IS 
>> "conventional reality".  Every last bit of it.  True Reality is not an 
>> existent, nor is it composed of differentiated entities.  We do not 
>> experience this ultimate Truth; we can only conjecture about it.  That is 
>> the purpose of metaphysics as well as the foundation of any belief 
>> system, whether "good" or "bad".
>>
>> 'Nuff said for now.  I leave you both with my very best wishes for a 
>> joyous and spiritually fulfilling holiday.
>>
>> Essentially yours,
>> Ham