[MD] The Beginning of it All

[Vishwajeet Saharan]

The last lines intrigued me - if not in workd of finite experience, where should one look for that esthetic or enhancing experience.  And maybe desire inthe wold of finite is not so good but desite for THAT..., so a redirecting or in psychological terms sublimation is a better idea.

> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:34:02 -0400> From: hampday1 at verizon.net> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org> Subject: Re: [MD] The Beginning of it All> > Marsha --> > Sorry for this delay in responding to your Saturday posts. I had started to > write a reply to your 4:14 PM message when we experienced a power failure > that lasted the better part of the night. (Could this have been an omen > from on high? ;-)> > You wrote:> > There is mundane morality. "Man (She holds her nose as she writes> > the word.) is the measure of all things." The MOQ has produced an> > intellectual structure on which to make moral decisions. Ahh, but> > then there is Quality, the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum, the> > Tao, the ALL which cannot be undesirable and is perfect, good and> > moral as it is. The mundane (good and bad) is also this Quality and> > is therefore perfect, good and moral. Or as Dwai states, "... cannot> > possibly be undesirable."> > What do you mean by "mundane morality"? Selfish? Worldly? Ordinary? All > of these characterize human morality as I know it. You say that the MOQ has > "produced an intellectual structure" on which to make moral decisions. Can > you define this structure as a rule or principle of decision-making? From > what I've seen of these discussions, the idea is that Intellectual patterns > must be allowed to conquer Social, Biological, and Inorganic patterns, but > there is little agreement as to which level specific patterns belong to.> > When Pirsig says "Some things are better than others", I assume he's > referring to the mundane world of differentiated appearance. I take it to > mean that some things are more desirable than others, and that evil or > immorality is undesirable. But you define the "undifferentiated aesthetic > continuum" as Quality, and say that the mundane (morality?) is "also this > Quality and is therefore perfect, good and moral." Am I missing something > here? How can an undifferentiated continuum contain goodness and badness, > perfection and imperfection, and be both moral and immoral?> > In a later note (5:21 PM) to Krimel, you said:> > I would think (arf!) desire on the mundane level is undesirable.> > Pray tell me, Marsha, on what other level does desire operate? Even > Krimel's dog expresses her likes and dislikes as behavioral responses that > we loosely call "desire" or "repugnance".> > In Western logic, opposites do not equate. You seem to be saying that not > only is badness good but desire is undesirable!> > As you see, I don't subscribe to the Buddhist idea that desire is the root > of all evil. Quite the contrary, what we desire expresses our sense of > value and is the driving force of human progress. Without desire, human > beings would be devoid of feelings or motivation. Unable to discriminate > between good and bad, mankind would have no morality, and civilization would > stagnate.> > If there is an undifferentiated aesthetic continuum of Quality, it is not to > be found in the mundane world of finite experience.> > Regards,> Ham> > Moq_Discuss mailing list> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org> Archives:> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
_________________________________________________________________
Post free property ads on Yello Classifieds now! www.yello.in
http://ss1.richmedia.in/recurl.asp?pid=220