Good evening Ham,
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > G'day Mark -- > > >> Hi Ham, >> Bet you knew I would reply as your old nemesis. Thanks for >> trying to harmonize, it is the same thing that I attempt. I will >> provide some input into your topic and try to stay rational. > > You are not my "nemesis", Mark ...just a rational thinker who has swallowed > too much of the Quality doctrine. [Mark] Perhaps it has swallowed me. > [SNIP] >[Ham] > Well put, Mark. We only sense the quality of something, which is its Value > to us. We turn this Value into experience by objectifying (actualizing) it > in the space/time world. But this is only OUR side of the Value (Quality) > interface, so we don't see the whole picture. [Mark] Intellectually we do not see the whole picture, how could we? So, I agree. > [SNIP] > > That is not what I meant by "extending beyond". I wasn't inferring that > gases in a vacuum, metals in a magnetic field, or trees and vegetables are > "consciously motivated". What I meant by "the motivational power of Value > that transcends experience" is that the cosmic principles which direct the > behavior of physical phenomena are imbued in the Value from which our > experience of process is derived. The forces we intellectualize as Boyle's > Law, gravity, and electro-dynamics in our experiential world are the > teleological counterparts of Essential Value which transcends finitude. In > other words, there is no need to revert to animism in explaining the > processes of Nature. [Mark] Yes, and I am not reverting to animism. I am simply using common sense. So, again I agree. > >[SNIP] >>[Mark prev] >> The notion of "betterness" becomes highly teleological. This is also >> a problem with defining evolution through "that which survives". So, >> such a notion of betterness can be said to arise out of our personal >> relationship with the universe. This betterness is part of our >> make-up in our daily actions. We can therefore postulate that it is >> something that exists. > [Ham] > I would say that we do "make morality up", but pehaps that's because I have > a different concept of Morality that you're using in this argument. Man's > morality (i.e., humanism, individual liberty, social justice, 'do unto > others...', etc.) is a code of behavior rationalized by humans for the > preservation of civilization. Our concept of "betterness" (morality) may be > the "human equivalent" of value-sensibility; however, it is not directly > imposed on us by Value (Quality). Every culture develops its own "morality > system", which demonstrates that "betterness" is open to free choice. [Mark] As you know, I am in tune with free choice. I would just not use it as an argument for creating morality. Our choice is in which morality to follow. In my sense of things, such morality already exists. The code of behavior is a rationalization of what would be termed an irrational awareness of an existing thing. I do not see the concept of imposition. Since we are Quality, there is not higher authority that I can think of. Perhaps this is a difference between my Quality and yours. > > [Mark]: >> >> Yes, Quality is a perfect entity, expressed perfectly in the moment. >> But I am fine with your otherness as well, since it can be reduced to >> the same thing. >> >> The moment cannot be sub-divided, therefore Occam's Razor >> does not apply. > > I don't know what "expressed perfectly in the moment" means. There is > nothing "perfect" in man's limited sensibility or experience. Perfection > can be no more than a conceptualized ideal in the human mind, whether > momentary or cumulatively conceived. [Mark] Yes, you are not the only one, which means that I am not presenting it in the most understandable way. Something that is perfect is something that is not lacking. Nothing can be added or detracted from the moment. There is no comparison possible in the moment, such as "this moment could be better or more perfect". Each moment is uniques as it unfolds. Perfection only becomes an issue when we compare pasts or futures. It is hard to describe fully, and I can only present how I experience it. There is no future, there is no past, there are no comparisons. The moment does not have time since it is too small an interval for that. Sometimes it can be very strange to be in the moment and be thinking about being in the moment. Often this breaks the spell. So instead of an intellectual explanation (to myself) I consider it as feelings. One such feeling is an intense one of relief. There is also joy, and loss of any worries, like things are just right. I will leave it at that since this is a tangent. > >> [Mark Prev] The shadows which we see are cast by Quality. [Ham]> > The shadows are our "experiential representation" of Value. We ourselves, > not Quality (Value), are the actualizers of our reality. [Mark] That works for me. Since I see myself as part of Quality, my equation is much simpler. > [Mark prev] >> Yes, as with Buddhist thought, we sense an incompleteness in what >> we experience (also mistakenly termed "suffering"). We want to >> experience Quality as ourselves, which is what is achieved through >> disciplinary mindfulness and Yoga. Many people have done this, >> and do not just dream about it. Therefore, such yearning can come >> to an end once it is achieved. This is what Zen is all about; uniting >> with your essence, and not having to be dead to do it. > [Ham] > Again, I would say that it isn't Quality so much as its "essence" that we > seek, and we can only approach it through our realization of Value. [Mark] That conforms with what I think too. > [Mark prev] >> I would not speak of all mankind in this way, but you are correct >> that some seek such fulfillment. > [Ham] > You don't think we ALL do? Consider the goals and ends toward which we all > strive. Are they not all expressions of that longing or aspiration for what > lies beyond our valuistic experience? We may not all be consciously aware > of our estranged Source, per se. Some think of it as the desire for power > or celebrity; others equate it with more romantic notions; but how can we > account for human motivation other than being driven by our sense of Value? [Mark] Yes, I thought about how I said this after my previous post. Indeed we all do. What I was trying to say, is that some Consciously are aware of doing this. This gets into nit-picking so I can agree with you that all of us experience Quality, some through a darker glass than others. > [Mark prev] >> Yes, we represent Quality in its human form. In this way, we are >> Quality. Differentiation is not the norm in our daily lives. Only a >> small part of our experience is subject to differentiation. This >> conversation being one of those. Your heart is one with the universe. > [Ham] > No, Mark. Human beings are not "Quality in its human form." Far from it. > We are but a sieve through which Value passes, only an infinitesimal portion > of which is realized and seized or acted upon as our "value complement". The > infinite remainder is One in Essence. [Mark] As you know, I have a hard time conceiving that we are separate from Nature. I am not sure what part of us would be separated, except for the soul. This I do believe to be true, but the sieve is our bodies which are part of nature. Nature can of course be extended to include everything including the soul. So, depending on the semantics, Nature, Quality, Essence, could all be one thing that is differentiated. And, as you know, I do not see the need for "another side". > >> Difference is the MO of Quality. That is why it is called that. It >> provides Qualities. We are not separated from it in my opinion >> except perhaps consciously. Instead we are in tune with the whole. >> Part of the harmony. >> >> Meaning is provided to us, we cannot create such things. >> Nothing from Nothing. > > Again I take exception to the notion that "meaning is provided to us". The > meaning of life is always relative to the cognitive agent. Working that out > for one's self is the very purpose of human existence. Indeed, if meaning > were fixed and automatic, the individual would have no choice but to behave > as Nature mandates. No, Mark; freedom of choice is man's most precious > asset. [Mark] Would you say that existence is provided us by Essence? Or at we at odds with such a thing? This is all that I mean by provided us. That is, that it exists and we can take part in it. > > [Ham]: >> >> On the other side of sensible value lies the uncreated, unmoved >> and Absolute Source of this individually cognized world of >> appearances. Value realization is "essential" in two ways: >> It is a sensible derivation of the Source; and it is our inextricable >> connection with the Source. Therefore, it follows that whatever >> future awaits us when we have departed this life is "valuistic" in nature. > > [Mark]: >> >> Well, you know I don't see this, but I am willing to try to harmonize >> it. The world of appearances is what Quality provides, again, that is >> why it is named as such. >> Certainly what awaits us is valuistic, in the same way as what >> preceded us. If it wasn't we wouldn't be here right now. What Value! > [Ham] > Why it is named as such? Who has named Quality as the world of appearances? > I don't recall that definition in Pirsig's writings. What preceded us > cannot have been our Value (quality), because we were not there to realize > it. Remember my maxim: Unrealized Value is an oxymoron. Value realization > is proprietary to the individual subject. [Mark] The word Quality has certain expectations (definitions) of it. It is used to denote characteristics (appearances). This is why it is used. That something has qualities means that something appears a certain way. I am not speaking in tongues here, I am just using common English. I am sure there was Value before we were born, since others seem to have experienced it. This sieve we currently inhabit is not the sum total of our sense of Value. It is a sieve (or Avatar as I sometimes say). [Mark] Yes, your maxim is indeed a good one. How about Hidden Essence? Is that an oxymoron, or some kind of perfume? > > I still see RMP's handwriting on everything you say. [Mark] That is funny since many claim that I have not read Pirsig. Oh, well, damned if I do and damned if I don't. Story of my life. > [Ham] > Here's to less Quality and more Essence! [Mark] Is it the Essence of Quality, or the Quality of Essence that you are interested in more of? Cheers, Robert Pirsig (oops!) I mean 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
