[MD] American moral complex

[MarshaV]

Greetings SA,

At 08:52 PM 7/29/2007, you last wrote:

>      [SA previously]
> >  I don't think learning facts without any
>pragmatic/practical
> > application is very compassionate in the long run.
>
>       [Marsha]
> > Why do you think it's not very compassionate?  Why
> > should I pay attention to your judgements?
>
>       Back to square one.  Ok, your curious.  How does
>curiousness reach out to others?  Explain this
>curiousness.

Others?  I don't know. I'm an introvert. I carry others inside.  It's 
like always experiencing the answers too large for the question.



> > >      [Marsha previously]
> > > > What benefits?
>
>      [SA previously]
> > >      The later is morally to benefit the
> > >former/founding level.  These levels work within
> > >themselves to meet this moral obligation.
>
>      [Marsha]
> > Come on????????   That's the map, not the moon.
>
>
>     Whenever I 'moon' using the internet, only words,
>thus, a map will come up on your screen.  Not sure
>what your driving at here.

I don't know how to explain the experience.


>
> > >      [Marsha previously]
> > > > Is something harmed?  What do they influence?
>
>      [SA previously]
> > >      These last two questions are important.  To
> > >collect knowledge without any helpful application
> > >isn't very compassionate.  Maybe in time this
> > >collected knowledge, 'just the facts', will help
> > out somewhere, but then somebody would need to find
> > >meaning, value in these facts and find pertinate
> > >application.  I keep thinking how the intellectual
> > >level has a moral obligation to help the social
>level.
>
>      [Marsha]
> > I understand seeing, hearing, tasting, touching,
> > smelling AND thinking to be tools.  Nothing wrong
>with using them
> > all.
>
>      Nobody said otherwise, or at least I didn't.  I'm
>actually talking about the USE of them all.  For what?
>  We are not in a bubble here in our safe little world
>closed off from everything, I think you may agree with
>this.  So, in what way do these levels connect, and
>since we are all four levels how do we connect them in
>the valued moral way I believe the MoQ sets out to
>convince underlies our experience already.

I have pretty much chosen to withdraw into a semi-solitude to 'get at 
this'.  A woman the other day called me a little mole.  I don't know 
what you mean by 'moral way'.  If Mr. Pirsig has equated morality and 
'the good' with Quality and Nothingness, then it is what it 
is.  Would you pick apart a river in a moral way?  The flow of the 
river is the flow of the river.


>
> > >      [Marsha previously]
> > > > If they disintegrate, same questions?  Are they
> > a subset of other patterns?
>
>      [SA previously]
> > >      Sure patterns are in four levels.  They may
> > >generate into a higher level or degenerate into a
>lower level.
>
>      [Marsha]
> > Not sure about that.
>
>      Exactly, but the movements and changes we do know
>about are moral.

In the sense that the movements and changes are what they 
are.  Manmade morality is another question, a big question, choking 
question.  We are reminded at the beginning of ZMM:

And what is good, Phaedrus,
And what is not good--
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things.



>
> > >     [Marsha previously]
> > > > What do they serve?
>
>      [SA previously]
> > >      Not sure of the question.
>
>      [Marsha]
> > Does a particular pattern serve another patterns?
>
>      By serve what do you mean?  To help or to bow
>down.  There are have been known to be different types
>of serve, which one are you referring to?

Does a particular pattern prefer another pattern?  Do patterns orbit 
each other?


>
> > >      [Marsha previously]
> > > > Are they common in other individuals?
>
>      [SA previously]
> > >      Not sure of the question.
>
>      [Marsha]
> > As constellations of static patterns of value, are
> > individuals identical configurations of patterns?
>
>      Identical?

When you abstract to 4 levels alone you miss the dance.


> > >      [Marsha previously]
> > > > How far does that commonality reach?
>
>      [SA previously]
> > >      Until they differ.
>
>      [Marsha]
> > SA, I'm not looking for a fixed reality, reasons
> > why, justifications, ethics, purpose or anything
>like that.  I'm just
> > curious.
>
>      I'm just wondering what this curiousness does.
>I'm sure it does something, but what?  This is a
>significant question for me, but one that you would
>have a better answer for probably since this is
>something you do.

I don't know if curiousness does anything.  It is what it is.  It's a 
modus operandi.  I've stated before I don't believe there is an 
answer (past, present or future).


>       [Marsha]
> > I'm especially curious about things in the mind.
>Some
> > people are bird watchers.  Some people are people
>watchers.  I like
> > to watch my mind.  It's just an interest of mine. I
>figure my
> > mind works more or less like everybody else's.
>Plus, it's often very
> > humorous, and I love to laugh.  What can I say?  I
>sometimes paint
> > self-portraits.  They can be humorous too.  And
> > sometimes I think that everything I paint is a self
>portrait.
>
>      I see.  Thank you.  What does this portrait do?
>I know you say you like to watch.  Watching is an
>event, but what does this watching do with the world?
>It is an event we can't avoid at least while we still
>breath.

Sans conclusion, watching is watching.  Some might say it reflects 
the world.  Some might say it creates the world.  I like to leave 
watching as the experience of watching.



> > >      [Marsha]
> > > > Why wonder you might ask?  I believe, as
> > Socrates stated, that an unexamined life is not
>worth living.  Huh?
>
>       [SA previously]
>  >      true.  I don't ask why to wondering.  But
> > disney world dreaming only goes so far, but then
>again,
> > Mr. Disney came up with a place that is applicable
>to
> > his dreams.
>
>     [Marsha]
> > Ooooh!  Should I stare at trees?  Would you approve
> > of that?
>
>      What would that do?  This is not a question of
>approval or not, is it?  I'm wondering what staring
>does with this world.  The only movements and changes
>that the MoQ discusses that I can think of at this
>moment are moral and therefore a question of
>degenerative or generative.  Otherwise these static
>patterns are static, right?

No fun in just accepting ideas.  It's more interesting to see where 
they may flow.

>Water flows down a creek,
>and over some rocks, thus, a waterfall.  Water is
>dynamic and changes its' shape, speed, and position
>due to gravity as it flows through a creek.  Water is
>still on the inorganic level, now for those changes
>the water experienced and emerge from this water
>experience?  I guess these shapes, speed, and
>positions, etc... of water along a creek is still
>water on the inorganic level, water that is being
>creative and dynamic like splashes of thoughts in the
>mind that you watch.

I'm not a water baby.  But when I was moving into this place I went 
down to the lake.  I felt drawn to be immersed in the water.  I 
walked fully into the water, clothes and all.


>
> > >      [Marsha previously]
> > > To become a truer, clearer, more decisive
>constellation.
>
>      [SA previously]
> > >      sure, why not, but how does this help the
> > social level?
>
>     [Marsha]
> > Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.  I can't say for
>sure.   Am I obligated > to perform certain duties to
>help the social level?  Would you tell me > what you
>think these duties might be?
>
>      We ARE on the social level (we are all four
>levels as mentioned above), so, what does what you
>describe above do on this social level you are apart
>of?  What kind of connection does this becoming "a
>truer, clearer, more decisive constellation." make
>between the intellectual and social levels?

Maybe it's a way of removing a few pollutants.  Maybe that 
helps.  But I can't say for sure that is a correct assumption.  I 
really don't know.  There are two levels co-mingling here, sq & dq, 
me & the Universe, the known and the unmanifest.

>As what
>"these duties might be", well, this is your
>constellation that I'm asking about.  I'm not only
>asking out of curiosity, but also in an effort to be
>generative upon the social level, not degenerative.

It's uncomfortable to talk about these things.  I don't like to pin 
things down.  I prefer to leave things open.  New philosophical ideas 
don't provide answers, they may offer a new perspective.  Philosophy 
is such a man's world.  It's interesting and I'm curious.  But 
sometimes I so much identify with Lila's soliloquy.


Marsha