[MD] The Beginning of it All

[MarshaV]

At 12:34 AM 3/10/2008, you wrote:
>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? ;-)

Kali will have more to say later.


>Ham:
>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.

Mundane morality is the collection of patterns that humans define as 
morals.


>Ham:
>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?

I do not see a strict rule, but a dynamic principle.  A higher level 
pattern has precedence over a lower level pattern because it 
represents an evolutionary advancement.


>Ham:
> 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.

I don't agree with the word 'conquer'.  I think it's that a higher 
level is to support and improve lower levels.  The Intellectual Level 
is to help move the Social Level towards a more dynamic experience.


>Ham:
>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.

I think by "Some things are better than others", RMP is stating the 
obvious.  In this case, desirable seems to mean better, having 
nothing to do with evil or immorality.


>Ham:
>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?

To me Quality is (Dynamic Quality and static quality).  Mundane 
(human) morality is static quality.  (Hmmm.  I have to be careful 
with my words.)  QUALITY is beyond goodness & badness and all the 
static moral patterns.  QUALITY is beyond language and human 
understanding.  Actually, I like the word perfect, but understand 
that it is my static pattern.


>Ham:
>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 LILA, RMP states that "What holds a person together is his 
patterns of likes and dislikes."  I think that would hold for 
Krimel's dog too.  I think Buddhism states desire is the root to 
suffering.  I never used the word evil (I don't much like the word.), 
and I'm not a Buddhist, but I do believe that desire with attachment 
is the root of suffering.  For some things I seem willing to pay that price.

>Ham:
>In Western logic, opposites do not equate.  You seem to be saying
>that not only is badness good but desire is undesirable!

Western logic has its uses, but as has been stated by Krimel, it's 
rules & tools and therefore static patterns of value.  I can 
accommodate holding contrary views.  They're just patterns.  Forget 
the word desire.  It seems to be stuck in a spider's web at the moment.

The evolutionary good put into motion by Quality has no concern for 
the personal opinions of men.



>Ham:
>As you see, I don't subscribe to the Buddhist idea that desire is the root
>of all evil.

As I stated above, not evil but responsible for suffering.

>Ham:
>Quite the contrary, what we desire expresses our sense of
>value and is the driving force of human progress.

Progress is a rather one-sided opinion!!!


>Ham:
>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.

Hmmm.


>Ham:
>If there is an undifferentiated aesthetic continuum of Quality, it is not to
>be found in the mundane world of finite experience.

Humans are Quality.  Quality being Dynamic Quality and static quality.


>Regards,
>Ham

And regards,
Marsha

>



Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...