At 01:10 PM 3/8/2008, you wrote: >Marsha, and all -- > > > > I think your comment to Partha is an important aspect of pattern making. > > > > "Indeed, what the Taoist believes is that whatever > > is, is the Tao, so it cannot possibly be undesirable. > > Even the most seemingly ghastly thing is that way. > > Good and Bad are simply values we assign to things..." > > > > Whatever is Quality cannot possibly be undesirable. Quality equals > > Morality. Assigning good and bad are pattern making. > >An interesting, but flawed, analysis. > >Can what is "bad" be desirable? What is good (desirable) and what is bad >(undesirable) are patterns of our own making. But they are patterns of >value (Quality) which, you say, equals Morality. There is something askew >here. And it demonstrates a point I have been trying to make in my book and >the MD. > >We can't extrapolate morality and immorality beyond finite experience. >Thus, what to us is "unfair", "cruel", "painful", or "repulsive" are finite >representations (patterns) of the Tao (otherness) >relative to OURSELVES. If we take ourselves out of the equation, there is >no morality because there is no difference. It is man--alienated >value-sensibility--that determines what is good and bad and invents Morality >to categorize all experienced phenomena. As an alienated creature, the >human being-aware is divided by nothingness and imperfect, and the >imperfections are reflected in the objects and events which he perceives as >"bad", as well as what he doesn't perceive at all. Only a Sensibility that >is not divided from other-being is perfect. This, I believe, is what is >referred to in the various religions as God, Tao, Oneness, Buddha-nature, >and Essence. > >Being-aware is a divided (dualistic) entity whose experience is >differentiated and relational. And while Quality, Value and Morality (the >good-to-bad spectrum) are fundamental to experiential (S/O) existence, such >differentiation is not fundamental to the ultimate source. At the risk of >offending the MoQuists, I contend that the equation Quality = Morality = >Reality is wrong as applied to the undifferentiated source. My argument >rests on the metaphysical principle that Reality is not a divided system. >Essence is the absolute integration of contrariety. > >Food for thought? > >Essentially yours, >Ham >
Greetings Ham, There is mundane morality. "Man (She holds her nose as she writes the word.) is the measure of all things." The MOQ has produced an intellectual structure on which to make moral decisions. Ahh, but then there is Quality, the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum, the Tao, the ALL which cannot be undesirable and is perfect, good and moral as it is. The mundane (good and bad) is also this Quality and is therefore perfect, good and moral. Or as Dwai states, "... cannot possibly be undesirable." Marsha Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
