Greetings, John --
Lately I've made it a habit to refrain from responding to MOQ messages,
except for the rare occasion when the sender 'hits paydirt'. Your note to
Andre of 1/20 rises to that level.
Andre,
I have two things in mind: a very general question of why are we here on
earth? What is our purpose here?
The second thing that mingles with this is Pirsig's variant on the
Buddhist poem on page 406 of LILA:
"While sustaining biological and social patterns
Kill all intellectual patterns...and then follow Dynamic Quality and
morality will be served"
It appears to me that these lines refer to a non-dual perspective...the
fusing of what Paul, in his paper terms an epistemological and an
ontological context. ...
J: I'm not exactly sure what a "non-dual perspective" would see, but
about
the Giant I agree and have a question for you, and in fact, for anybody
who
can answer. Isn't it a de facto necessity that the Giant MUST operate
according to a SOM system? It seems that a values perspective would of
necessity be operating on a shifting scale of shades of gray and what the
system requires is a binary decision process of simple black and white in
order to function.
I think this is exactly right. We do live in a relational world where
values are experienced on "a shifting scale of shades of gray." And if
"black and white" are your standards of measurement, then your decision
(value choice) will depend on where the matter in question appears on that
scale.
It just seems the checks and balances of competing selves that make up the
body of the Giant, requires the metaphysical underpinning of a certain
absoluteness of subject and object. I ask because lately it occurs to me
that the urge to "change the system" is inherently a lost cause. I'd like
to know for sure if that is so or not.
"Giant" is Pirsig's metaphor for the System, and a system is always the
order we make of disparate components -- the infrastructure of relational
existence. We can rearrange the components or alter their characteristics,
but this is akin to shifting deck chairs on the Titanic. The "absolute"
you are looking for is the unity of subject and object.
I have just read a remarkable paperback by Gerald Schroeder, an MIT-trained
nuclear scientist who has worked in both physics and biology. It's titled
'The Hidden Face of God: Science reveals the Ultimate Truth,' and it may
offer the approach you need. Schroeder's thesis is that the laws of nature
operate according to a creative intelligence that transcends scientific
theory. As Schroeder explains, we now know not only that behind matter lies
energy, but also that behind energy lies the essential "wisdom" of creation.
(You'll find my review along with a sample of Schroeder's argument on this
week's Value Page at www.essentialism.net/valuepage.htm.)
Scientists no longer question the intelligent design of the universe. Some
have called this wisdom the power of "information". I use the term
"Essence" and liken it to the Absolute Sensibility on which existence is
based. As negates of Essence, human beings are endowed with the
value-sensibility that makes us autonomous creatures
subject to the laws of nature, yet capable of being the 'choicemakers' of
our world. I believe Pirsig has overlooked that fact that, despite our
inability to experience this ultimate Essence, it is individuals who create
the Giant, and it is our "static patterns of value" that drive the System.
Has this reply suggested a solution to your quandary, John? If so, I would
be happy to
put it all together for you.
Thanks for breaking the monotony of puerile chatter with a truly meaningful
question.
Essentially yours,
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/md/archives.html
