[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Heather Perella]

Ham,

     Ham this was in the last posting as follows:  

     I extracted from your description one statement
that I don't quite understand:

> Thus, while the Action part of Essence moves about
> changing and becoming an aspect of Essence that is
> breaking down all finite boundaries, seen everywhere
> known as infinite, and expressed as many things
including
> the 'one long now', is holding itself together so it
does
> not break apart into Parts to never be considered an
All.

I don't know what you mean by "seen everywhere known
as infinite", and I don't see Essence "holding itself
together so it does not break apart into parts." 
Perhaps you could explain what you had in mind here. 
To me the integrity of Essence is primary; it doesn't
have to hold itself together because it IS One in
Essence.  The break into actualized existence is what
is extraordinary, and it will always be a mystery to
its "parts".

> [T]hat ability 'holding everything
> together' that I identify as 'Stillness' might lead
> right into what you mention as 'Value'.  The Action
> moving from place to place knowing it is held
> together, valuing its' freedom, desiring to move and
> having an attraction based on Value, yet, attracted
to
> move and having that value because 'it knows' of the
> 'Other'.

Again, I would say that the "ability" (potentiality)
of Essence is
manifested in its actualization of relations rather
than in its "holding together", since in Essence there
are no "others" to be held together.   In other words,
the "natural state" of reality is Oneness, not
diversity.  It is existence, not Oneness, which is the
inexplicable oddity here.


What Ham said in the his last posting is above this
line
------------------------------------------------------------

     In that first explanation above in where you were
questioning what I was talking about I did leave it
open-ended and did not explain myself very well.  What
I was saying Action is an aspect of Essence (aspect
may have to be defined because at this point I do not
want to say Action is a Part of Essence, I am saying
Essence is not Actualized at this moment of
explanation, I'll go on...).  Action is changing,
moving, churning about and when it is Actualized into
Parts these Parts are kept together as a Whole, as
Essence, by Stillness.  This Stillness is the aspect
of Essence that stays with all Parts, making the Parts
a cohesive whole.  Does this mean that the Parts have
an aspect that are not with Essence?  No, because the
Stillness or the aspect of Essence that is always here
being with everything, and is everything is always
Still with the Parts.  Yet, the aspect of Essence that
Differs into Beings and is Actualized as Parts of the
All is Essence churning, moving about, Differing from
place to place.  This is the aspect of Essence that I
am not able to get a sure handle upon, because it is
not steady and does change, and when I look around I
see many different things and Essence seems to be
broken up into many different Parts, but always
Essence has that aspect of itself that is Still Here
in all Parts being All Parts, being that Wholeness
that Is.  Yes, it is existence that is the oddity
here, not the Oneness, but this oddity of existence is
Tricky to the eye, the churning about of Action that
Essence Is, yet, at the same time amidst this 'one
long now', that Essence is also known as, nothing is
being 'held together', in the sense you stated, yet,
without the Stillness that Essence is amidst its' also
churning bubbling Self then Essence would break apart.
 Maybe it is the, How can Essence be Moving and Still
at the same time that you are asking about?  I would
answer, because:  Essence is always with itself no
matter where it goes.  This last point I would
highlight. 

-----------
  Ham said:  
      Essentialists know what Value is for.  It
reminds us of our impermanence in the world, our
nothingness in relation to the source, and our need
for a transcendent identity.
You see, you have indeed led us into the topic I want
to discuss.  By the
way, why don't you reply under a new heading --
something like "What is the meaning of Value", for
example?
(Perhaps that would entice more of the Pirsigians into
the discussion.)  

-----------
     'Our nothingness in relation to the source' Are
you saying this Nothingness that is Essence relating
to us with our finite, tiny skulls, and therefore this
is the reception we get when we tune into Essence -
the incomprehensible Nothingness or Quietness, just
like when we try to tune into a radio channel and try
to rid the fussy noise to understand and clearly hear
The channel?  Why tune in?  Because we Value it?  Why
Value it?  Because It Values Itself?  Why?  That is to
ask What is Value and all relations thereof?

     One more thing, and this is something Zen or SA. 
Why tune into the reception of Essence heard quietly
and the picture of its' movie seen as Nothingness when
it is always Still Here no matter how much we think we
have to understand it, know of it, and seemingly seek
it when it is not to be sought because it is Always
Still Here?  Because, it is Churning, Moving, Day and
Night, full of Seasons always budding and falling
leaves, thus, we churn, move, bud and fall for our
minds to clearly be aware and alert, or else it will
still be with us, yet, we would not know that, go too
much into habit, and fall asleep.

     Are we ready for discussing the meaning of Value?
 I am as long as we have all of these loose ends
sewn-up.  
     (A side note:  In the subject Barbarian Attack,
it seems the discussion is converging upon What are
Morals?  And I found out through a MoQer that Pirsig
admits he did not define Morals very well, and the
discussion might be heading into a What are Morals on
various levels type of discussion.  Why bring this up
you might say?  Well, I am only about 1/4 the way
through Lila at this point, and would you say
discussing and finding a meaning of Value is to find a
meaning of Morals?  If so, we could still begin
discussing under a new subject heading to attract
other MoQers, and I think it would be helpful to show
we are entering a new subtopic.  Yet, maybe one day we
will enter back into a discussion of "Is Morality
innate in the cosmos?")

     I did end this with a question of comparison
between Value and Morals, thus, if you are ready and
all loose ends are sewn, as I already said, you may go
ahead and begin a new subject heading called "What is
the meaning of Value?"  I will jump right into that
discussion.

Thanks 
SA    

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com