[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Heather Perella]

     [Ham]
God expects man to DISCOVER WHAT GOODNESS IS.  Such is
the difference between a philosophy that preaches
morality without trying to define it and a philosophy
that defines reality without trying to moralize it.

     So reality is not moral?  Why would we moralize
then?  What's the point in moralizing, if our
moralizing has no niche in reality?  Do you see what
human beings do, as not important, not affective or an
effect upon reality?  Thus, it's as if you're saying
we human beings do 'things' such as moralize, but this
is only in our 'human bubble world', thus, we live in
a bubble from reality?  If we are to "DISCOVER WHAT
GOODNESS IS", then we either create goodness into
reality, thus, we put goodness in reality, which also
makes reality moral, by our moralizing it?  Are we
that powerful, as to put morals into reality, yet, you
say G-d wants us to discover goodness, so, this
directive is from G-d, too, so ultimate reality is
moral?  Why do I circularize in my discussion, with
question, after question, when I try to logically,
step by step, understand your statements?  You
probably will say I don't know why you do, but
continually many have difficulty with your thesis. 
Does anybody understand your thesis, without any blind
faith?

     [Ham]
> Clearly man is designed for a more noble purpose
> than accepting life at face
> value.  We have the intellect, intuition, and
> spiritual drive to understand
> our role in existence.

     As somebody who understand the MoQ, I say Pirsig
says use intellect, too.  Actually he states we do use
it, no question.  He says we have intuitional (the
example of we all know what quality is) and spiritual
drives (what is spiritual?  I take it to simply mean -
togetherness, but my definition of spirituality is not
totally intellectualized).  So, what's so different
here, this is basic drives by human beings since the
cave paintings, as far as recorded history goes, A?

     {Ham]
  Sure it takes "faith" and
> belief in a source of the
> values we are capable of appreciating.

     I think your only basic motive in your thesis,
and all the explanations you come up with is to argue
this point.  This statement by you, Ham, is, I
believe, your basic motivation and underlying premise
to argue true, and why you might argue against all
other philosophies due to them NOT having a credible
metaphysics, according to you (everybody has an
opinion), to explain a source.  Is this your basic
motive and argument against all views that you've come
across in your lifetime, thus, as a motive, you've
gained a will to come up with a credible (in your
eyes) philosophy to explain a source, to put the
concept of a source, within a field (philosophy) that
can argue with strength, finally according to you, a
source.

     [Ham]
Quality -- a word that its author won't define much
> less explain in terms that are meaningful to the
individual.

     Ham, when will you realize you will not ever know
everything.  You say this, but you don't realize what
you're saying, when you yourself have mentioned before
that human beings don't know everything.


     [Ham]
  The fact that it "sounds like" a Zen
> Buddhist concept does not impress me.  To me, that
> is "accepting something
> only on faith."

     And this goes back to your biggest pet-peeve, I
believe.  Your whole motive and premise in coming up
with your own thesis, to have a knowledgeable argument
about a source, not just a faith/belief, in a source. 
To make a source, not just involved in the religious
realm, but in the realm of philosophy, which the
latter involves not just faith, but a knowledge that
exists in the human mind, thus, not just merely
speculation based on belief, but an 'experience' that
human beings have in our knowing, that can be argued,
of a source.  Maybe this is where you are coming from,
your motive?


     [Ham]
> What kind of "guidance" does a single word give us? 
> The easiest way to
> destroy moral values is to teach a child that
> "everything is good".

     Sure, everything has quality, but moral decisions
are to be made in order to not only intellectually
understand this quality, but to social mimic this
quality, and so forth, don't you think?

     [Ham]
  The child will grow up believing he can do no wrong.

> The same is true if we
> convince ourselves that the universe is innately
> moral.  It relieves the
> individual of any need for discernment or
> discrimination.

     Moral decisions, don't forget those moral
decisions are discerning what this universe is, the
one with nature idea is morally decided upon, in such
expressions as in what is more one with nature: 
dumping chemicals into a creek, or finding another way
to rid of these chemicals from the local facility. 
The implication in the 'one with nature' is a decision
based on what is the best way to live with nature,
this implies nature has a Way we are live upon.  We
choose the right Way, one of quality, and our moral
decision will be on target with a way that is quality,
as opposed to a way that is not of quality, thus, not
morally a good decision, one that does not fit into
Natures Way.  The guidance would be, what is nature's
Way? - answer, the one that is quality. 


     [Ham]
  It also demeans
> the principle of individual freedom.  If everything
> is Quality and Goodness,
> exercising free choice serves no purpose except to
> foul up the moral system.

     The choices are made.  Is everything of quality? 
Biology and the inorganic have been long established,
so, the quality that is held upon these levels has
been long at work in establishing the quality.  The
social and intellectual levels are still argued, wars
are fought based on these levels, undoubtly the other
levels, too, but even those wars can be argued to be
based on a person's moral decision, such as Hitler
thinking Jews suck and blue eyes are the best.  The
moral decisions humans make are in an effort to
establish quality upon these social and intellectual
levels.  Your thesis could still be philosophized, as
long as it has quality, thus, is not something that
has no quality.  Your thesis would still fit onto the
intellectual level arguing its' quality and why it is
important to have not just belief, but a knowledge of
a source.  That would boast the argument for a source
out of the field of religion, that some have put
religion only upon the social level, and thus, put a
source upon the intellectual level, thus, according to
the MoQ, morally more fit to exist since it has
intellect in the understanding, not just social
mimicing.


     [Ham]
> > Does God have Quality? Does the Buddha have
> Quality?
> > And, if you think of the universe as anything
> other than
> > accidentally designed, does the universe have
> Quality?

     I'll leave these questioned to Chin, since they
seem to be personal questions aimed at Chin.

     [Ham]
> Nothing has Quality unless we value it.

     Thus, the Quality is Value, statement by Pirsig,
I assume.

     [Ham]
  Otherwise it's an empty word.  We
> can't value something that we don't believe in,
> understand, and incorporate
> in our life-experience.

     That's why quality is incorporated into our
life-experience, and the MoQ also makes it
intellectually simple, but yet, unforgettably a
thought.  


woods,
SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com