On Monday 20 April 2009 2:34 PM Marsha writes: Hello Joe, > > Oh yes, Case's 'The Tao in Four Parts' is > absolutely wonderful. I am so happy to see it, > even in part, posted again. But for some reason > The Way doesn't work for me, while Emptiness > does. I previously mentioned that I had been > bitten by the Buddhist logic, and while 'I' > didn't suffer total destruction, Emptiness now > seems to run in my blood. I bet there are many paths. > > > Marsha
Hi Marsha, My experience with ³emptiness² came as Louise lay dying. She was at home hooked up to a lot of stuff. A couple of days before she died we had a swishing party at her bedside. Some of my family were present and I had a bottle of champagne given to me by a friend, who suggested that I would know when it was the right time to pour it. The party was a success. Louise participated and was laughingly chided for swallowing some champagne. My sense of Louise was that she was staring at emptiness. A couple of days later the feeling intensified, that she wanted emptiness, and here she was hooked up to all this stuff. I asked the nurse to unhook her. Her face was very peaceful as she passed. I have embraced emptiness for the past 2 years. A couple of weeks ago I was getting ready to go sing in choir and a friend called to ask if I could pick her up at the car dealership where she had dropped her car off for repairs. I had time. On the way home a car ahead of me spun out and went head on into a retaining wall, bounced off and drifted back across the road. The driver got out and stood beside the car with smoke pouring out of the interior. I guess the airbag had deployed. The lady I picked up got out of the car to offer her help to the driver. I went on to my singing appointment. As I drove away emptiness was present. I did not know where I was or how to get home. I made a few wrong turns until I finally decided that the direction I was going though unfamiliar was the right direction. I passed buildings whose color and shapes were so beautiful, that I had never noticed before. Strange! Joe On 4/20/09 2:34 PM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: > At 04:00 PM 4/20/2009, you wrote: >> On Monday 20 April 2009 11:56 AM Ham writes to Platt: >> >> <snip> >>> Rather, it's the principle that value sensibility is >>> proprietary to the individual, not an attribute of the universe. >> <snip> >> >> On 5 March 2009 Case¹s Answer to Marsha: >> >> Still given the teleological bent of so many MoQers and the mystical bent of >> others I think The Way is a much better way of naming the unnamable Quality.. >> It implies a path or a journey, movement through space and time. A path >> wanders over and around obstacles. We see it ahead of us and it guides our >> steps but we still do not know where it is leading or if we will get there. >> The Way is a mystery but we are tuned by nature to recognize it in the >> patterns of meaningful coincidence that arise with every step we take. >> >> When the Shit hits the Fan >> Hold your breath, close your eyes and walk on. >> >> End of Part Four >> >> Hi All, >> >> I like the TAO. >> >> Joe >> On 4/20/09 11:56 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Platt -- >>> >>> >>> >>>> I have probably missed the point of your questions since it >>>> seems obvious to me and probably to you that we as >>>> human beings currently living in the West are much better off >>>> than we were, say, in the Middle Ages or, going back even >>>> further, when we were painting symbols of antelope in the caves >>>> of Lascaux. As for the obvious "better offness" of morality, >>>> we no longer live in a world where might makes right but in a >>>> world of laws protecting individual rights to be free of social >>>> (government) oppression -- rights that as you know are now >>>> being threatened. Unfortunately the path to >>>> betterness (individual liberty/personal responsibility) is never >>>> without reversals and setbacks such as we are witnessing today. >>> >>> I guess I've narrowed down my "mission" here >> to a single purpose: persuading >>> the MoQers that value and morality start with the individual subject. The >>> problem with you folks -- and that includes >> you, Platt -- is that Pirsig has >>> rejected subjectivity and you are all trying to get around it by impugning >>> value to the insentient universe. This won't work epistemologically, >>> metaphysically, or as a morality system. >>> >>> This isn't a political mission -- heaven knows we've been beating that to >>> death for years. Rather, it's the principle that value sensibility is >>> proprietary to the individual, not an attribute of the universe. Value is >>> perceived differentially by the human being (organism) which >>> intellectualizes (rationalizes) it as an "esthetic/moral spectrum" from >>> goodness or excellence to evil or banality. What we experience are >>> objectivized manifestations of these values, and morality represents an >>> effort to ensure that human society survives and flourishes in the same way >>> that biological instincts assure the survival of non-valuistic life forms.. >>> >>> I believe that Mr. Pirsig was aiming for the same objective when decided to >>> make LILA "An Inquiry into Morals". What >> muddied the waters was his refusal >>> to acknowledge subjective awareness as the >> locus of value, replacing it with >>> an evolutionary system of levels and patterns which, in effect, turns >>> process and relations into "static" phenomena. >>> >>> Back in the '50s, I was intrigued by a small paperback in which a biologist >>> outlined a moralistic philosophy based on attraction and desire. As a >>> social moralist, you may find his line of reasoning of interest: >>> >>> "How much more certain a man is to do right if he not only knows what it is >>> but WANTS to do it! This want guards him far more strongly against wrong >>> than does the enforcement of his loyalty by law or obligation. A stong >>> desire, a goal he seeks, is more powerful in >> the end than these. The lesson >>> we must learn is that the only sure way to make man moral is through his >>> motives, to make him WANT to do the things he OUGHT to do. The means to >>> save society may be as simple--and as difficult--as that. What makes us do >>> evil is that evil, for one reason or another, attracts us more rthan good >>> does. Not until virtue is attractive FOR ITS OWN SAKE will men cleave >>> always to it. Our motive, our emotions, our MOVINGS must be elevated if >>> life is to reach a higher moral plane. Many reformers think that emotions >>> are a hindrance to man's attainment of the ideal society, and look forward >>> to the day when reason only, unclouded by feeling, will guide his conduct.. >>> That day will never come, for emotion gives the motive power for behavior.. >>> ...Science can help develop techniques by which the good life can be found, >>> but we shall never attain to it unless we earnestly DESIRE to do so." >>> -- Edmund W. Sinnott: "The Biology of the Spirit" (1957) >>> >>> For all I know, Dr. Sinnott's little book may have sparked my interest in >>> human value. (I no longer remember.) However, if you compare this simple >>> concept with Pirsig's non-subjective, >> non-emotional, levels-driven universe, >>> you may understand the reason for my discontent. >>> >>> Essentially yours, >>> Ham >>> > . > _____________ > > 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/ 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/
