At 12:34 AM 3/10/2008, you wrote: >Marsha -- > >Sorry for this delay in responding to your Saturday posts. I had started to >write a reply to your 4:14 PM message when we experienced a power failure >that lasted the better part of the night. (Could this have been an omen >from on high? ;-)
Kali will have more to say later. >Ham: >You wrote: > > 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." > > >What do you mean by "mundane morality"? Selfish? Worldly? Ordinary? All >of these characterize human morality as I know it. Mundane morality is the collection of patterns that humans define as morals. >Ham: >You say that the MOQ has >"produced an intellectual structure" on which to make moral decisions. Can >you define this structure as a rule or principle of decision-making? I do not see a strict rule, but a dynamic principle. A higher level pattern has precedence over a lower level pattern because it represents an evolutionary advancement. >Ham: > From what I've seen of these discussions, the idea is that >Intellectual patterns must be allowed to conquer Social, >Biological, and Inorganic patterns, but there is little agreement >as to which level specific patterns belong to. I don't agree with the word 'conquer'. I think it's that a higher level is to support and improve lower levels. The Intellectual Level is to help move the Social Level towards a more dynamic experience. >Ham: >When Pirsig says "Some things are better than others", I assume he's >referring to the mundane world of differentiated appearance. I take it to >mean that some things are more desirable than others, and that evil or >immorality is undesirable. I think by "Some things are better than others", RMP is stating the obvious. In this case, desirable seems to mean better, having nothing to do with evil or immorality. >Ham: >But you define the "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum" >as Quality, and say that the mundane (morality?) is "also this >Quality and is therefore perfect, good and moral." Am I missing >something here? How can an undifferentiated continuum contain >goodness and badness, perfection and imperfection, and be both >moral and immoral? To me Quality is (Dynamic Quality and static quality). Mundane (human) morality is static quality. (Hmmm. I have to be careful with my words.) QUALITY is beyond goodness & badness and all the static moral patterns. QUALITY is beyond language and human understanding. Actually, I like the word perfect, but understand that it is my static pattern. >Ham: >In a later note (5:21 PM) to Krimel, you said: > > I would think (arf!) desire on the mundane level is undesirable. > >Pray tell me, Marsha, on what other level does desire operate? Even >Krimel's dog expresses her likes and dislikes as behavioral responses that >we loosely call "desire" or "repugnance". In LILA, RMP states that "What holds a person together is his patterns of likes and dislikes." I think that would hold for Krimel's dog too. I think Buddhism states desire is the root to suffering. I never used the word evil (I don't much like the word.), and I'm not a Buddhist, but I do believe that desire with attachment is the root of suffering. For some things I seem willing to pay that price. >Ham: >In Western logic, opposites do not equate. You seem to be saying >that not only is badness good but desire is undesirable! Western logic has its uses, but as has been stated by Krimel, it's rules & tools and therefore static patterns of value. I can accommodate holding contrary views. They're just patterns. Forget the word desire. It seems to be stuck in a spider's web at the moment. The evolutionary good put into motion by Quality has no concern for the personal opinions of men. >Ham: >As you see, I don't subscribe to the Buddhist idea that desire is the root >of all evil. As I stated above, not evil but responsible for suffering. >Ham: >Quite the contrary, what we desire expresses our sense of >value and is the driving force of human progress. Progress is a rather one-sided opinion!!! >Ham: >Without desire, human beings would be devoid of feelings or >motivation. Unable to discriminate >between good and bad, mankind would have no morality, and civilization would >stagnate. Hmmm. >Ham: >If there is an undifferentiated aesthetic continuum of Quality, it is not to >be found in the mundane world of finite experience. Humans are Quality. Quality being Dynamic Quality and static quality. >Regards, >Ham And regards, 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/
