[MD] subject/object: no quality?

[Ham Priday]

Hi Marsha --



> I think that which is prior to our experience is best left
> undefined.  To me, using the word 'primary' is saying too much.
> The word 'purpose' seems very presumptuous.  While unknowable,
> within my frame of reference (constellation of overlapping,
> interconnected, ever-changing static patterns of value) I find
> events and relationships very interesting and exciting.  Therefore,
> I try to make the 'best' of these events and relationships.  I live my
> life.  And I'm happy corresponding with you is a part of that life.

Far be it for me to try to push a metaphysical hypothesis on you when you 
are obviously not ready for it.  I'm glad that you find the ever-changing 
patterns of events and relationships exciting, and can understand why you're 
presently content to leave the "unknowable" undefined.  Yet, there are many 
out there who are hungry for understanding beyond factual knowledge.  These 
are the folks I'm trying to reach.  A great many subsist on faith in 
religious doctrine, others seek the wisdom of the venerable philosophers or 
the spirituality of New Age mysticism, while some are convinced that 
scientific objectivism will eventually resolve all their questions.

What troubles me is that our society, with the help of Hollywood and the 
media, has succumbed to emotional fads based on issues which have no logic 
or wisdom behind them.  One of these fads is the belief that the desire for 
higher understanding is a relic of the past that "intellectual 
enlightenment" has overcome.  Elitists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher 
Hitchens play on this ruse by trying to convince the vulnerable that 
religion is the root of all evil and that it's time we put spirituality 
behind us.  They profit from the sale of books pitting Science against 
Religion, as if this were not a battle already played out in centuries past. 
Yet, they say nothing about the values that have been trashed by a culture 
which has made "having fun" the first priority, with little if any concern 
for fiscal, moral, or civil responsibility.

In a small book titled "Roots of Freedom", John Danford wrote: "The hedonism 
of individual pleasure-seeking, the sense that there is no limit to what is 
permitted in the name of individual fulfillment or 'actualization', the 
disappearance of any sense of obligations-these are early warnings of a free 
society's decay."   Unfortunately, he's right.  I would venture to say that 
most citizens today are so accustomed to enjoying the latest technological 
gadgets and an affluent life style, they've come to believe that America is 
invulnerable.  The sad truth is that they're in a state of denial about many 
"realities" confronting them, not the least of which is the threat of a 
barbarian culture fully committed to the destruction of their way of life.

A retired chemistry professor, and friend of many years, told me recently he 
thought value is really only "what's important".  I would turn his 
definition around and say that what's really important is value.  In  seven 
decades on this planet I have watched the values that made this nation great 
fall by the wayside to be replaced by the hubris of power, the deferment of 
individual responsibility, the mediocrity of multicultural egalitarianism, 
and the senseless rejection of metaphysical reality.

By the time you reach my age, Marsha, I suspect you will be expressing some 
of the same observations.  Hopefully by that time you will have sensed a 
need to revisit the concept of "primary source" and discover what is 
fundamental to your life-experience.

Thanks for a stimulating discussion.

Essentially yours,
Ham