Hi John, Thanks for joining in, I have missed your input. On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 1:33 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: [Mark] >> There appear to be two contrary positions as to its birth. Either we >>> are the source of value, or we are it's creation. >>> >> > John: > > What happened to "codependent arising"? That seems to me to be the only > possible solution, since there is no possible "we" without value and there > is no possible value without us. Also Mark, I think this is more in line > with your preference for a Taoist perspective, which I also prefer, btw.
Yes, codependent arising, whatever that means, endless cycling into emptiness without beginning. I find that a good way to dismiss the concept of source and move on. However, what I am trying to impart is a basic premise of Quality, that is often lost in this Western Dialectic approach that is taken in this forum. The Taoist perspective is a holistic view which does indeed impart meaning, but does not suite a discussion well, due to its forms of analogy. It goes more for the right side of the brain than the left, if you will. My present approach is to convey the upending of Truth with Quality, which is what lead Pirsig to his complete dissociation from reality, and, which he came back to relate in ZMM. So, for the purposes of this post, I am exploring the differences between an objective and subjective perspective of Value. The objective view is: what we sense as value, is a human perception of a larger Value. We get the mini-human values, which we say are ours, but are only appearances of Value which exists without us. The subjective would be, of course, that value is personal, and due to our interaction with that outside. It is the interplay between ourselves and the outside, which is felt, isolated, within, perhaps by the soul, or whatever one can imagine as the final feeler. > >> > John: > > I would like to address both of you on the issue of "conscious agent" and > "man" with the question, is it at all possible that intelligent life exists > somewhere outside of humanity's experience? If so, then it seems to me to > make both your formulations inadequate as universal truth. And even if not, > even if man is alone in this vast cosmos, there are still animals which > share our perception and a form of emotional reasoning which expands the > perceptions of value beyond the merely humanistic. Methinks thou has > wandered into anthropocentric reasonings. [Mark] I am not sure if you mean intelligent life as we as humans would define it. We are about 2 percent different from the apes (genetically), yet we feel we are way superior in intelligence. So, something 10% different from us, would be outside our imagination. For all we know, this could be a river. So, I think we are speaking of human truths. We can say that they are human, because we make them up. An atom would not understand, nor care to understand the human perspective. To say that there is reasoning outside of the anthropocentric sort, is like pointing to the wind as a form of reasoning, which it may well be considered to be. So, yes, it makes sense to stay with what we humans can create. It is also my perspective that any universal truth is man-made, and does not exist outside of our bubble. This is not to say that things do not exist, they do, but just not only from the human perspective. Such a thing is created through communication, and is like the buzzing of a bee hive. Not to diminish it, because it has great meaning to us. > > Mark: > >> Perhaps someone should write The Tao of Motorcycle Maintenance. >>> Oh, somebody already has. >> > John: > > One of my fab faves that I return to now and then is Benjamin Hoff's Tao of > Pooh. Perhaps my approach can be best understood then as trying to emulate > the Uncarved Block - Absolute Simplicism, indeed. [Mark] Yes, good book. I read it many years ago, along with its Piglet counterpart (Te of Piglet I think). I enjoyed it at the time, and should reread it now that I am a little older. I would like to hear more about the uncarved block as it relates to MoQ (or as it relates to anything for that matter). We do tend to make things much more complicated than they are, mainly because we are so important. > > > But many thanks to you both for fair-minded and intelligent discourse. I > 'preciate it like a jar of honey in front of the fire on a blustery day. > > > John [Mark] Yeah, don't get your head stuck in it, and watch out for those Eeyores around here, they are a little too deliberate. There are also some heffalumps that we try to ignore. Cheers, Mark > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
