Happy Greetings Ham!
At 02:58 PM 3/10/2008, you wrote: >Dear Marsha -- > >At 3:09 AM, you wrote: > > 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: >How do we know what will represent an evolutionary advancement? I do not think there is any way to predict what will represent an evolutionary advancements into the future. >Ham: >The inventor of the binary code saw this as an interesting way to >express alpha-numeric characters using only '0's and '1's. Did he >know that it would lead to the development of computers, digital >communication, and high-definition television? It's too early to know the results of this high technology. >Ham: >Did the colonialists who drafted the U.S. Constitution know >that it would become the founding document of the world's >greatest nation? Have you taken me for someone who is easily brainwashed? The question was based on six-grade propaganda. > > Marsha: > > 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: >Do we live to support and improve levels, or to support and advance >ourselves? I don't know why we live, and neither do you. Up to this point, humans evolutionary process has rendered it successful. Will this continue? Don't know! >Ham: >You object to the term "conquer" as applied to Pirsig's levels, and instead >say "a higher level takes precedence over a lower level." Well, if that's a >cosmic principle, we don't see much evidence of it in human relations where >selfishness, greed, arrogance, and the rule of power prevail. I didn't say that it was the cosmic principle. It's the MOQ principle. Human relations are of the Social Level, along with statements like "We are the world's greatest nation." This nation might have been built on intellectual principles, but it has fallen back into being led by the biological/social principles of 'every man for himself'. >Ham: >If Quality is not a cosmic principle, how are we to live by it? Quality is a word that represents the indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. >Ham: >I submit that all this statement suggests is that reason is (often) a more >effective approach to problem-solving than gut reactions, emotional >responses, or physical violence. Yes, making decisions based on intellect would be better than the above responses. >Ham: > There are exceptions to this rule, >however. If a thief breaks into your home, you're not likely to sit down >and ponder a reasonable solution to this problem. You will act immediately, >with what force is at your command. Yes, of course. >Ham: >If you've read my book, you know that l define morality as "rational >self-directed value". None of us can escape Value: it is primary to all our >needing, wanting, loving, and selfish desiring. All human beings are driven >by Value. As free individuals, we act so as to direct our value to the >optimization of experience that fulfills our needs, wants, and desires. We >make our actions "moral" when we apply reason to our value-driven behavior. >Morality generally refers to social behavior, that is, giving due >consideration to what effect my action will have on others. There are statements in your book I can agree with, but many I cannot. There is also too much assumption of agreement on underlying premises. I pick up the book to read a few paragraphs and get frustrated that it's being assumed I agree with these underlying premises. I do not. >Ham: >Thus, Kant's Categorical Imperative was: "Act only according to that maxim >whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". >Jesus taught his disciples to "Do unto others what thou wouldst have them do >unto you." These moral precepts admonish us to temper our responses and >actions so that they are "reasonable" within a social context. Have you forgotten that sadomasochist? Doesn't work as a categorical imperative. >Ham: >Consideration for others is "intellectual" when we are indifferent to the >affected persons. Everything is connected to everything. We are ever-changing, interconnected static patterns of value. If I do harm to someone else, I do it to myself. >Ham: > In many cases, however, it is our compassion that "takes >precedence over" intellect. Are we to conclude that emotional >(psycho-biological) responses are a "lower level" morality than Intellect, >that a mother's actions in response to a child in danger are less moral than >an intellectual response? The dynamic reaction will likely take precedence over all levels. >Ham: >If not, then human compassion is a kind of selfish value-direction which has >moral consequences. Moreover, if all human beings were compassionate toward >their fellow creatures, we could reserve intellect for those choices and >actions which do not directly involve social issues. Until then, I'll stick >with the precept "rational self-directed value" as my morality principle. It is what it is. You stick where you stick. > > Humans are Quality. Quality being Dynamic Quality and static quality. > >It's a nice thought, but I'd have a hard time convincing myself that humans >like Osama Bin Laden are persons of Quality. I could respect his >"humanness" if he were not inhumane. No person is one static pattern of value. But I understand, I'm having a hard time developing a feeling of compassion for GeoWBush.) > > 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: >That's an honest assessment, Marsha. And you are correct about desire as >the Buddhist "root of suffering" in the mundane sense of desiring. (It's >akin to the devout Christian's aversion to material attachments.) You and >I are both willing to pay the price of working for morality. No human being >is perfect, and Goodness and Evil are relative conditions in finite >experience. But we have a higher purpose here, I hope. And that is to >acknowledge a reality beyond relational existence. > >RMP has gained a loyal following by labeling this reality Quality, as if >Quality could stand by itself unconditionally. For me, quality or value is >a measure of goodness or excellence that requires an observing subject. >It's what we feel towards our uncreated source. Sensibility to value is our >link to that source but it's not the source itself. Religion, philosophy, >and mysticism all point to the ultimate reality, but the intellectual >creature in his arrogance calls it a myth, still suffering in his desire for >attachments. Quality-Value-Experience-Moral-Good.... While sustaining biological and social patterns Kill all intellectual patterns. Kill them completely And then follow Dynamic Quality And morality will be served. >Essentially yours, >Ham Valuistically yours, 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/
