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/
