[MD] French ingredient in the soup of sentiments

[MarshaV]

Oh Platt, you do turn me on when you talk quality like this.     - Marsha




At 08:54 PM 5/5/2006, Platt wrote:
>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.