Quoting Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Well said, Ham. One for my keeper file.
Best, Platt > > I think that which is prior to our experience is best left > > undefined. To me, using the word 'primary' is saying too much. > > The word 'purpose' seems very presumptuous. While unknowable, > > within my frame of reference (constellation of overlapping, > > interconnected, ever-changing static patterns of value) I find > > events and relationships very interesting and exciting. Therefore, > > I try to make the 'best' of these events and relationships. I live my > > life. And I'm happy corresponding with you is a part of that life. > > Far be it for me to try to push a metaphysical hypothesis on you when you > are obviously not ready for it. I'm glad that you find the ever-changing > patterns of events and relationships exciting, and can understand why you're > presently content to leave the "unknowable" undefined. Yet, there are many > out there who are hungry for understanding beyond factual knowledge. These > are the folks I'm trying to reach. A great many subsist on faith in > religious doctrine, others seek the wisdom of the venerable philosophers or > the spirituality of New Age mysticism, while some are convinced that > scientific objectivism will eventually resolve all their questions. > > What troubles me is that our society, with the help of Hollywood and the > media, has succumbed to emotional fads based on issues which have no logic > or wisdom behind them. One of these fads is the belief that the desire for > higher understanding is a relic of the past that "intellectual > enlightenment" has overcome. Elitists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher > Hitchens play on this ruse by trying to convince the vulnerable that > religion is the root of all evil and that it's time we put spirituality > behind us. They profit from the sale of books pitting Science against > Religion, as if this were not a battle already played out in centuries past. > Yet, they say nothing about the values that have been trashed by a culture > which has made "having fun" the first priority, with little if any concern > for fiscal, moral, or civil responsibility. > > In a small book titled "Roots of Freedom", John Danford wrote: "The hedonism > of individual pleasure-seeking, the sense that there is no limit to what is > permitted in the name of individual fulfillment or 'actualization', the > disappearance of any sense of obligations-these are early warnings of a free > society's decay." Unfortunately, he's right. I would venture to say that > most citizens today are so accustomed to enjoying the latest technological > gadgets and an affluent life style, they've come to believe that America is > invulnerable. The sad truth is that they're in a state of denial about many > "realities" confronting them, not the least of which is the threat of a > barbarian culture fully committed to the destruction of their way of life. > > A retired chemistry professor, and friend of many years, told me recently he > thought value is really only "what's important". I would turn his > definition around and say that what's really important is value. In seven > decades on this planet I have watched the values that made this nation great > fall by the wayside to be replaced by the hubris of power, the deferment of > individual responsibility, the mediocrity of multicultural egalitarianism, > and the senseless rejection of metaphysical reality. > > By the time you reach my age, Marsha, I suspect you will be expressing some > of the same observations. Hopefully by that time you will have sensed a > need to revisit the concept of "primary source" and discover what is > fundamental to your life-experience. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
