[MD] desires

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Dan (Marsha quoted) --


[Marsha, previously]:
> Desires are just a way to ward off one's only certainty: death.
> Desires project existence into the future so one does not have to
> deal with one's fear of death.
>
> Except for the wish to become enlightened, the Buddha has said
> that desire is the source of all suffering. I suppose I needed to
> work this out for myself, because desire has culturally been labeled good.

[Ham]:
> As a Quality devotee, how can you dismiss what drives us all toward
> "betterness"?
>
> Is there anything you do, short of an obligatory chore, that is not
> motivated by desire? Wanting to paint, listening to music, seeking wisdom,
> falling in love, improving your healh, increasing your wealth, satisfying
> your hunger, caring for your children, longing for peace -- are these not
> all examples of your desiring?

[DMB]:
> What we like gets us out of bed each morning and it gets us off
> hot stoves. It's the continuing stimulus that creates the world in
> which we live.

> Dan comments:
> I didn't comment on dmb's post as I agree with it and saw no need
> to improve upon it. But Ham, I think you are being far too simplistic
> in saying desire is a high Quality event.
>
> Some desires do indeed lead to suffering... for example: the desire
> for more, more, more, infecting the corporate structure and wrecking
> havoc on the world economy over the last few years... the "keeping up
> with the Jones," so to speak.
>
> I think it is a mistake to equate desire with value and Quality as
> value and Quality exist without the desire to possess them. This,
> perhaps, is what Marsha is pointing to?

[Marsha adds]:
> There is an abundance of material to support the fact that 
> longing/desiring/
> craving is the source of suffering.  For me desire is all about illusion,
> it is not realizing that the object of my desire is a projection, a 
> pattern,
> a conceptual construct that does not exist out there somewhere separate.
> Desire creates separation, builds ego or I-ness; it is dualistic through 
> and
> through.  -  I paint when I prefer to paint above all other activities.

The object of your desire may be an "illusion", but does knowing this stifle 
the desire?  The point is that we desire what we do not have, as Socrates 
said.  Sartre said "we desire the being of the other for ourselves." 
Preference is simply your desired "choice" to paint.  I see nothing wrong 
with "building the ego"; it is no more sinister than building 
self-confidence, which is what we teach our children.

I think I may have stumbled unknowingly upon MoQ's Waterloo.  Pirsig defies 
epistemology by claiming that Quality exists independently of man.  This 
leads his followers to believe that it is unrelated to desire, making desire 
a greedy, infectious state of mind.  Why else would Dan associate desire 
with only selfish goals and motives?  The concept of individual liberty and 
social morality is derived from the desire of human beings to better their 
collective situation, not "wreck" it.  The development of science and 
medicine was motivated by desire for the knowledge to alleviate suffering, 
not "cause" it.

Of course unbridled desire can lead to gluttony and aggrandisement.  Too 
much candy can cause a stomach ache.  Too much power can breed tryanny.  But 
must it be sinful to "want" something?  How can human civilization progress 
without it?  Besides, human beings have the rational capacity to temper 
excess craving.

And, no, Dan; I do not believe for a moment that "Value and Quality exist 
without the desire to possess them."  To value something is to desire it. 
If Value could not inspire desire, we would have no way to realize it.  And 
if man lacked the capacity to discriminate between good and poor quality, or 
to choose what is of value, he would be reduced to robotic status.  I'm 
sorry if this epistemology conflicts with the Quality thesis; but it is a 
common-sense view that merits some serious reckoning by the Pirsigians.

Essentially speaking,
Ham