[MD] French ingredient in the soup of sentiments

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham,  

[Ham]
> As a point of technicality, my Essence is not "extracorporeal" since it
> encompasses all as Not-other to itself.  I'm not sure whether this is
> alleged to be the case with DQ; but if it is not, then Quality cannot be
> the primary source.

By "extracorporeal" I mean transcends the material world. DQ does. I 
assume Essence does, too.

>  If DQ is Mind, as you suggest, rather than
> Intellect, you are in Hoffman's "Consciousness" corner, not Pirsig's. 
> Again, however, you would have to define "mind" as the Source or Creator
> of all that is -- i.e., the power to actualize or differentiate physical
> reality.  Is that your metaphysical position?

Yes. Only I would capitalize Mind as you do Essence.

 > Mind is a part of awareness.  Yes, metaphysics is "bogged down in
> vocabulary"; it has to be because words are all we have to express
> inexperiencable concepts.  Personally, I think the common notion of Mind
> is restricted to "thought processes" or "mental activity" which is too
> limiting for the primary source.  Mind has no particular value aspect
> because it does not imply "sensibility".

To my mind, :-) Mind does imply sensibility. I don't think there's such 
a thing as an insensate mind. On the material level, the brain is just 
a bulb of nerve tissue that "senses" the external world -- and Mind.

> That is, we perceive aesthetic
> value "sensually" rather than mentally or intellectually.  (The way you
> experience Beauty, for example.) 

I couldn't agree with you more. Sensing aesthetic value is not an 
intellectual experience.

>  I prefer Essence because it connotes
> source, nature, immanence, fundamental and indispensable.  Do you think
> Dynamic Quality would suggest a primary source to anyone unfamiliar with
> the MoQ?  Does it mean primary sour ce to you?

Yes. DQ means primary source to me because, as you say, I'm familiar 
with the MOQ. I see why you prefer Essence. It does connote the central 
core of things. But to me, the term "essence" lacks a dynamic creative 
aspect. The essence of my bowl of oatmeal just sort of sits there.

> You said:
> > The brain accesses mind that is infused in all things
> > and exists everywhere at once.
> 
> I said:
> > So we're back to the notion of a collective mind,
> > which might as well be Pirsig's Intellect, and once again
> > I have to ask why you're bothering to push for intellect
> > as individual.
> 
> You answered:
> > To me "collective mind" means everybody agreeing
> > on certain truths or courses of action. The "Mind" I
> > talk about transcends everybody.
> 
> A transcendent "Mind" would have to encompass differentiated "beingness"
> -- subjective awareness and its objects -- as a single, absolute
> identity.  I can't envision a Mind as having no object, but maybe you
> can stretch your definition to make this conceivable.  In any case, I'll
> stick with Essence.

We're so imbued with the subject-object paradigm that it's 
inconceivable to envision anything without an object since subject 
depends on there being a object, just as the concept of one demands the 
concept of many. It's like the koan of conceiving of one hand clapping. 
Inconceivable.
 
> Platt previously:
> 
> > What attracts me to Pirsig is his connecting of Essence to
> > Morality. I know you disagree, relegating morality to the
> > narrow, restrictive social world of man. But I see no reason
> > why Essence isn't a moral force. In fact, if Essence is all
> > inclusive and all creative as you say, not to include morality
> > would be a contradiction.
> 
> Morality, like everything else, is ultimately "connected" with Essence
> by virtue of the fact that Essence is the primary source of everything. 
> But to believe that the universe is moral is a misconception. 

Not to me. A moral universe explains a lot, like "Why evolve?" 

> Differentiated existence is no more moral than it is "bad" or "good". 
> It is the individual who makes this determination by realizing its
> value.  If the universe were "all good" there would be no sense of
> relative values, hence no reason for differentiated awareness.

As Pirsig explains, at various levels of the universe, the values of 
good and bad vary. What's good at the biological level is not always 
good at the social level, as the current scare about bird flu attests.  

> So, you see, I do recognize Value -- not as "morality" but as the
> conscious individual's attraction to and desire for what he senses as
> "good", "significant", or "beautiful" in a world whose attributes run
> the gamut from the sublime to the abominable.

Well, how can I argue with that? All I do, as Pirsig suggested, is 
extend that evaluative ability to all creatures great and small. And I 
consider choosing something better over something worse to be a moral 
choice. But, I admit it takes a leap from the ordinary use of the 
language to buy that. 

> Incidentally, I must commend you for your persistence in defending
> America's free enterprise system against the continuing onslaught of the
> leftists in this community.  It's a hopeless challenge, but you accept
> the task with such grace and eloquence that no one can doubt your
> sincerity or dismiss the facts you bring to this issue.  (I wish I had
> you as an editor for my Values Page!)

Many thanks for the compliment. I'm so use to getting beat up here that 
any kind word is most appreciated!

Warm regards,
Platt