On Mar 8, 2008, at 2:26 PM, MarshaV wrote: > > 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
I had started typing out a response to Ham, but I stopped, since he is essentially saying the same thing as I was, except perhaps he doesn't know that (yet). Ham said -- 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. Indeed, Tao, Brahman is beyond all qualification. It simply is. Also true that the being-aware is dualistic. The quest is to put these two (poles) together (set them in harmonious motion -- Taiji) and thus become (one with) Tao. I don't see how what we were discussing is "Flawed". It is once again, a case of approach (each from the other side of the spectrum). 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/
