From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Mon Jul 11 2005 - 09:16:46 BST
Another good morning Ham,
You suggest:
>So, perhaps our definition should say: Existence is the
>*experience* of things in time and space. We are then in agreement with
>Pirsig's MoQ which asserts that Quality (I would say the "experience of"
>Quality) is the basis of our reality.
I agree with this.
You reply on my statement that buddha-nature concerns:
>> Both other and not-other, there's no difference.
>
The following:
>Logically, of course, there is a difference. In my philosophy, Essence is
>The Not-other, which implies "propriety" or "selfness" in the absolute
>Source. The "created' other is Existence which is the subject/object
>dichotomy everyone wants to get rid of. The "not-" in this other is what I
>call the "negate" (a la Sartre). Existentially the negate is nothingness.
>But essentially it is the individual self, the subjective "free agent" that
>derives its beingness from other (its existential object).
The only real objection is the start of your statement: "Logically, of course", which implies that my vision is logically incorrect.
I understand your points about essence and existence, now better then before, and indeed they're not wide apart from 'my' unity/duality theory.
You ask:
>Do you have any problems with the Cusan theory of Not-other as the Source?
>I think it's the perfect solution to the DQ enigma.
Depends how you regard the individual self, the ego. For me this is a manifistation of duality. But the true Not-other is Not-other from any perspective? Then I guess I would regard that as a good theory for the source.
>How can Oneness (your Unity) encompass differentiated existence? Simple.
>By making existence its not-other. That way, difference is logically the
>essential One, and vice-versa. Moreover, this logic supports the
>"unreality" of the individuated self, since self is "not" and everything
>experienced is "other". The bond that holds them together is Value. In
>Pirsig's terms, the static levels/patterns are essentially DQ! We don't
>have to apply any "attributes" to the ineffable; we simply affirm the logic
>of this relationship. Doesn't that work for you?
If I say, 'self' is also experienced, would that make sense to you? That's the only objection I can think of now.
Further on the pain/stove example:
>The result may be the same, but the the proprietary nature of somatic
>sensibility is a different kind of experience than conceptual reasoning that
>identifies and defines universal phenomena. I see Value as exclusively a
>proprietary experience of the individual. We can express and communicate
>our feelings to others, which makes them understood universally. Simple
>example: I can point to a stove and say, "see, that's what I'm talking
>about"; I can't point to my pain and say, "See, that's what I'm feeling."
>Feelings are proprietary to the self. So are (esthetic) values.
You see the stove, hence you can make others see it
You feel the pain, hence you cannot make others see it, but you sure can make them feel it.
The stove is something that reflects light and causus pressure when you move your hand close enough.
The heat of the stove doesn't reflect light but causes pain to your nerve-system, and can actually alter your skin. Still I don't see a huge conceptual difference.
I said about the source/unity:
>> For me the start and end and the source is Unity (DQ).
>> From a Unity-point of view there's nothing but that,
>> or else it would not be unity. Still this is not what we
>> experience. The big-bang may have been a disruption
>> of this unity, which instantly create duality.
You commented:
>Unity can't be "disrupted", Reinier. It's immutable. (Intuitively you
>already know this.) The solution is Cusa's theory, as explained above.
>Unity, Essence, DQ, God -- whatever we choose to call the all-encompassing
>Source -- is Not-other.
Indeed 'disrupted unity' isn't unity. Stories I read somewhere come to mind.... When you meditate your whole life to become enlightened and you finally reach your goal and pass that gate, and then you look back over your shoulder. You will see there has been no path and no goal and no gate.
Or the story of the tree that stood by the sea, and one day, just because of looking at the sea, it thought it was the see, and it became so unhappy. It really wanted to be a tree again, never realising it never stopped being a tree.
These are, short, incomplete stories, that are very limited in their explainatory value but you'll probably get my point anyway.
If you choose to see duality, you will see duality. If you choose nothing but just see, then there's unity. Unity never ceased to exist, it's always been there, but always isn't the right word cause there's no time in unity. We can say 'duality and unity are two different things' but from a unity 'point of view' there is no duality, only unity which is everything, undifferentiated.
You conclude:
>Reinier, despite our minor differences (mostly terminology) , you and I are
>on the same page metaphysically. I can't say that about any other MoQer
>I've corresponded with.
I guess we're close indeed, looking forward to reading your next port.
Kind regards,
Reinier.
__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 11 2005 - 09:22:17 BST