[MD] aggregates of grasping

[Ham Priday]

Mark, Joe, Marsha, Andre, Dan, and All --

On Mon, March 5, 2012 at 6:49 PM, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Through this forum we can create opinions as "far out" as they may seem.
> Discussion can help us reformulate.  It is always part of creation.  We 
> will
> never know enough to stop our opinions from progressing, so their is
> never "enough".  Give it a shot.  There are never any stupid opinions.
> No matter what other members may proclaim.  They just have an agenda.
> Such agenda is static, and not becoming of MoQ's striving towards
> "betterness", IMO.

Having refrained from participating in this forum for several weeks because 
my ideas did not fit the official MoQ doctrine, I've been amused (and 
occasionally astonished) by some of the opinions recently posted here. 
Mark's "open door" solicitation has persuaded me to "give it another shot."

Although I'm not convinced that "agendas are static" or that the MoQ is a 
"striving towards 'betterness'", it is clear to me that all philosophical 
formulations are at base "opinions".  Otherwise they would not be 
philosophical formulations but scientific theories based on logical 
formulation of empirical data.

I find it interesting that our beloved Marsha, who has consistently denied 
her selfness, now denies her ability to form opinions, as well.  After 
reviewing Mark's analysis of her March 4 dissertation on feelings and their 
ownership, Marsha responded:

> I don't know enough to form an opinion.  It is extremely interesting, 
> though,
> and I hope to learn more.

One can only wonder what all those quotes posted from the Vedanta and 
Buddhist scholars are intended to express if not her opinion.  Marsha has 
certainly formulated her own opinion of what a SOM pattern is, since 
"ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent, static patterns 
of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value" has become the 
mantra that identifies her.

And friend Joseph is so fixated on evolutionary theory that he cannot 
explain human Will or Intellect as anything but a "product of passions and 
feelings", ...

[Joe, on 3/4]:
> For myself I view feelings as emotions and imho indefinable emotions
> have metaphysical reality DQ in MOQ. "Categories" is a product of
> evolution and emotions as being indefinable function without intellectual 
> logic.
> It is only the intellect which does this, and such intellect stems from
> the passions.
> Passions/Feelings are more closely allied than Passions/Intellect in
> evolutionary description.  Decision can follow passionate reality as well
> as intellectual reality.

I think we've over-complicated the functional and experiential categories of 
existence in an effort to conform to the Quality hierarchy.  The Pirsigian 
worldview is almost incomprehensible as a consequence of such analysis.

For example, if 'free will' is only "an intellectual static pattern of 
value," as Marsha asserted, then freedom is an exclusive property of Quality 
and "human freedom" is a meaningless concept.  And if Value, Love, or 
Morality cannot be equated with feelings, as Dan maintains, then how in the 
world do we realize or define them?   Surely both Free Will and Value are 
immanent sensibilities that drive human behavior and lead to the development 
of moral concepts which (we can only hope) will improve our society.

Frankly, I can't conceive of Value (Quality) "bettering itself" or Free Will 
having anything to do with the evolution of the universe.  These are 
distinctly human precepts which arise from man's relation to his essential 
Source.  But that's because I view the universe as a dynamic
anthropocentric system as opposed to static patterns created by an esthetic 
"moral" reality.

But Mark says "there are never any stupid opinions."  So, I'm hoping he's 
right and that these comments will not be taken as an offense to either RMP 
or the opinion contributors I have cited.  I can assure you, at least, that 
my "far out" opinions are not part of any "agenda" to disparage the MoQ.

And thanks to all for your indulgence.

Essentially speaking,
Ham