From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 01:02:35 BST
Hi Ham,
I think we've arrived at a common understanding.
You explained:
> You can arrive at an understanding of Value by asking yourself: What in the
> world do you want or "love" most? That brings your pyscho-emotive
> functions into play. I tend toward epicureanism, for example, so I seek
> out music by Tchaikovsky and Strauss, illustrative art, pleasant
> companionship and fine food.
I seek out music by Rachmaninov and Debussy, realistic art, pleasant
surroundings and beauty wherever and however it may occur. It appears we
would enjoy each others company immensely.
> These are "conditional" values for me. [Note
> that I'd have a problem calling these deseridata -- or even my affinity for
> them -- "Qualities"] While, in a general sense, I agree with Pirsig that
> everything we experience has Quality [Value], this does not logically lead
> to the conclusion that Quality [Value] must be Reality itself. Those of a
> theistic persuasion, for example, would have trouble with the notion that
> God is "literally" Love -- although most of them see the connection, and
> some have tried to "deify" Love. However, I do believe the concept that
> "Value is the essence of man's reality" has much potential for society at
> large.
Secular society has obviously lost it's way, as evidenced by today's
kitsch art, banal architecture and schlock music. Values have become
relative and morality a matter of taste. Under these conditions, the only
way forward for society is downward. (Many of today's young are unwilling
to battle evil because "who is to say what is evil and what isn't?") A
rebirth of Christianity appears unlikely in face of the scientific
worldview onslaught. But, as Pirsig often says, even the most hidebound
atheistic scientist must admit to the existence of values. Therein lies
the hope of which you speak.
> Since I believe in an a priori Source, and view all experience as a
> duality, I may have a slight advantage over the professor in that I can
> posit a dualistic Value, whereas his all-encompassing Quality must be
> non-dual. Both of us, however, are equally convinced that "QV" [if I may
> use this abbreviation in the spirit of cooperation] is the key to reality.
Absolutely. Dual or nondual is perhaps besides the point. We are, as they
say, sympatico. Thanks for helping me see your light.
Best,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 16 2004 - 00:59:34 BST