Hi Michael --
On 2/3 at 8:26 PM, in response to my 'Man is the measure...' quote, you
wrote:
Ah! Yes. But to what does Man owe this ability to value?
I read recently that the ability of man to moralize (not just valuate)
is actually now being shown to be biological and unique to man.
This *cannot* be a random coincidence when you consider that
the value is always pointing in a *particular* direction, and with
MoQ's insights that its not just animate objects/q-patterns that do it.
There's something else going on that is *way* beyond our intellect
to discern, and we are a key part of it. But MoQ is IMO a
*seminal* moment in humanity's evolution: objectively understood
value *outside* man. We've done it before (theism) but this time
we've done it (ok, Mr. Pirsig did it!) rationally.
It is the nature of man to "value". It is how he discerns what is good and
chooses to act in ways that advance his status over other creatures.
Biology and genetic evolution may have given him the neurons and brain
connections to conceptualize his experience, but, as you say, this cannot be
the result of probability or chance. Rather, the ability to discriminate
morally, esthetically and intellectually comes from the sensibility that is
innate to man's awareness. If you consider value-sensibility the core of
man's pysche, and experience as his intellectual configuration of value, you
have the rudiments of an epistemology that explains why "we are a key part
of what is going on." Moreover, if you consider that the value from which
proprietary awareness is derived is "universal", you have a plausible source
for the forms or "patterns" of experiential reality that are "way beyond our
intellect."
Okay so far?
I'm not sure where I fall out yet, I'm still trying to wrap my head
around what I've learned from Buddhism and Taoism let alone MoQ.
Plus I'm not a philosopher by education, so that's slowing me down too.
I keep getting some deceased thinker's name thrown at me and that
means reading another book. They are stacking up quickly.
I will say though, that I'm seeing a LOT of patterns matching up among
all of these and what I know of g*d. I just keep learning, thinking,
talking while waiting for the "seed moment."
It won't come all at once like an epiphany. But your philosophical reading
will help to shape your concepts. I'm not academically trained in
philosophy, either, though I've been studying it for several decades.
Buddhism and Taoism, properly translated, will give you some pretty prose
which may put you in touch with your feelings, but you won't learn
philosophy from it, at least not in the logical, dialectical sense. I
suspect you may be experiencing a mid-age religious crisis and are looking
beyond traditional dogma for spiritual guidance or support. Some years ago
I read a book by a Christian minister called "Your God is too small". The
title itself expresses the shortfalls of theism for me.
I think, though that the term "Absolute Source" implies a pantheistic POV,
where it may be more fruitful to foster an understanding of this "s*urce"
to include that we don't really know whether it is one or the other,
or that the distinction even makes any sense at that point.
That point has been made before, but Essentialism really has nothing in
common with pantheism. The pantheist believes that everything taken
together constitutes holistic reality. The essentialist discounts the
reality of "things", regarding all existents as intellectual constructs of
value. In Pirsig's terms, there are two "levels" of reality: absolute and
differentiated. The Essence of reality is uncreated, undivided and
immutable, while the "actualized" world of process and difference is a
product of the reduced (negated) sensibility of finite creatures.
Thought of another analogy (you'll see I like them) today driving
(8 hrs on the road gives one a lot of time to contemplate the universe):
Theists and Scientists arguing about which has the best grip on reality is
like a
robin and a mouse arguing about who of them controls the house; the robin
says its him because he's on the roof and the house can't fly away while
he sits
there, the mouse says it her because she's in its walls and when the house
crawls away, she'll always be with it. Little do they notice the MoQ cat
in the
house by the open window observing them both, lazily contemplating which
would be easier to digest, all the while sitting on a newspaper open to
"free
puppy" ads that the homeowner left by the window when he got up to clean
the
"d*mn cat's" poop off the carpet again and pay his long overdue mortgage,
tax
and utility bills before the repo man comes.
I'd rather think we are *all* willing to be as open as possible and what
matters is not who's best at it, but that we are all pursuing discussion
in
the interest of greater understanding, not something less.
There's lots of windows in the house, and while each has a different view,
or looks a different way, they do *all* look outside.
Can't disagree with your objectives. I try to be open to new ideas, even
here on the MD, although few have struck my fancy lately. My major problem
with the MoQ is its failure to acknowledge the integrity of the
individual.as a cognizant agent of value. I think we all have a different
take on Pirsig's shortcomings while, at the same time, finding our own
"resonance" with his thesis. Eventually you'll discover what "works for
you" and what doesn't, and that's the choice we all have to make.
Thanks for the support, and I'm pleased to have the opportunity to hash
this sort of stuff out with a group that takes their intellectualism
straight iced.
Good luck in your search,
Ham
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/
