Re: Ham; Re: MD Is Morality Relative?

From: Ron Winchester (
Date: Sat Dec 11 2004 - 01:25:33 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Biological - Terrorism?"

    Hi Ham,

    Forgive me if this double posts, but I'm not having too much luck with my
    emails at the moment.

    Thanks for the well thought out reply. It gives me a better understanding of
    where you are coming from. Maybe I can come up with something that shows a
    bit how I do not see Quality coming from your individual efforts, and
    Quality can come from everything around you.

    The creation you are looking for is outside current boundaries of man's
    understanding. As best as I can get at it, there was this something,
    nothingness, or absolute, or maybe just particles and waves. Where this
    something, nothingness, absolute or particles and waves came from is way
    beyond any comprehension (of the human mind). This first something may have
    dreamed thoughts to the infinity of creating the world around us, and it is
    using us to create this world, and what it will become in the future. Or, it
    could have as you said negated itself in order to become something else it
    desired to be. Or, some little something like the particles and waves just
    formed into something, and continued forming into something elses, until
    they became something of tangibility, one thing right after another that
    went their separate ways, and created the biological from the inorganic from
    whatever, which continued to evolve to what all these different somethings
    are today, and will be in the future.
    However you look at it, the beginning somethings had to have a desire (of
    lack of a better word) to be something else. These desires, or thoughts,
    thought their own thoughts, and became something else, and these something
    else's thought their own thoughts, and . . . Or, this original thinker
    thought its own thoughts, and all the things that evolved from this original
    thinker was in tune with the original thinker's thoughts, and thought to the
    point that they became what this original thinker had designed. Or, these
    original particles and waves just interacted with each other, and from
    observing each other and evolving into other things from each other from
    this observance, just continued to observe, and change, and observe, and
    change . . .

    At the beginning of it all, there was some consciousness of desire, and all
    of space and time, all thoughts and objects, all environments and dimensions
    just exploded into an infinite realm of possibilities beyond that beginning
    of nothingness, somethingness, or absolute thinker. Each of these actions
    created different objects and different thoughts and different forms of
    intelligence. Nothing remains the same, and everything evolves into
    something more than it is, as we have become more than we were, no matter
    how you look at it. From this, you could conclude that your meaning
    (purpose) in life is to continue to grow into something 'Better than' what
    we are now; bring Mother Earth to something 'Better than' it is now, as well
    as maybe even the universe.

    In the Question of "Who are we?' we have to come to some conclusions as to
    why we were the chosen one, or the ones that evolved either biologically or
    chaotically into the higher of intelligence, or maybe even if we really are,
    but that again is a dimension so far removed it is not humanly capable of

    What I offered as you seeking "Creative excellence," is not bad if you think
    in the realm of possibilities of 'Better than.' As an academic philosopher,
    you have to consider the whole realm of philosophology in order to know that
    you have considered everything offerable as an argument against your
    hypothesis; the new, but still the old static patterns that have outdated
    themselves. By the time you have proven your thesis, it has become a static
    pattern. If you think in the realm of creative excellence as opposed to
    academic excellence, you may manage to find what you are looking for as the
    engineer does; stumble across it. :o)

    If we think that we are this higher intelligence, then we must think there
    is some universal principle involved that caused us to be so, whether you
    take it as God's plan, or the result of chaos happening in this manner. If
    we do have intelligence, we have to reason as to what meaning this has to
    the continued evolving of the human, and if this continued evolving has to
    do with the evolving of all other nothings, somethings, or particles and
    waves (or strings) of the universe. So whether it simple chaotic evolvement
    or systematic evolvement from a plan, in one way or the other, it is our
    thoughts that create the world around us. If it is our thoughts, and we
    depend on static patterns, then we go nowhere; we couldn't even have ended
    up here.

    I think a lot of the respect Pirsig shows to Buddhism, is that Buddhism was
    Quantum Physics before science discovered Quantum Physics. Quantum Physics
    is denied credibility by the static patterns of the present, but as our mind
    evolves, and new minds enter into the realm of time and space, then it is
    quite possible Quantum Physics will be looked at in the same light as
    gravity. This opens up a whole new outlook on thought. Whether our thought
    process causes our physical actions to change the world around us or our
    thought process can actually change the world through the observance, or the
    circular observance of everything to everything, it will take high Quality
    thought to advance.

    The idea that SQ and DQ are intercorellated comes from this idea that SQ
    equals DQ in a circular motion as mentioned about the discussions we had,
    and someone (msh?) mentioned rising circles. As the 'Better than' thoughts
    enter into our thought processing, the less than better thoughts drop out or
    become less focused on., the high Quality thoughs continue to give rise.

    The art part of this comes 'Not' from becoming skilled at what you do from
    repetitious actions or thoughts, but letting go of the idea that it takes
    repetition to become artful. It may just take a new way of looking at our
    relation to ourselves and the universe around us. It does not take an ego to
    drive us, but a realization that everything in the universe is doing exactly
    as we are doing, trying to create a better universe; desiring to become
    something we are not; something better; something of a higher Quality. If
    we can correlate our desires to the desires of everything around us; this
    would be true art.

    Like time and space, maybe everything changes from the point from which, or
    maybe even how, you observe it.

    As best as I can offer, that is pretty close to my thoughts on what is the
    purpose of life. I could go further, but the further I go, the less sense it
    would make to someone who does not see things the way I do. I must respect
    that someone, but I must respect what has entered into my though process as

    Good luck at making sense of any of this. :o)


    >From: <>
    >To: <>
    >Subject: Re: Ham; Re: MD Is Morality Relative?
    >Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:40:27 -0500
    >Dear Chin --
    >Yes, you are quite right. I'll admit I jumped to the concluding part of
    >your paragraph, giving short shrift to the line about "performing a task"
    >There is joy in achievement, and we do realize a certain value (Quality?)
    >a task well done, whether this is accomplishing it effectively or coming up
    >with something original in the process. It seems to me, though, that the
    >joy we feel in doing something well is as much 'personal pride' as it is
    >experience of Quality -- in other words, ego gratification. How do you
    >distinguish the two feelings, and how does either of them afford us
    >All of us are beset with mundane tasks that we learn to do almost
    >automatically -- house-cleaning, washing dishes, taking out the garbage,
    >shaving, etc. We don't want to have to think about them; they are routines
    >best gotten "out of the way" so that we may concentrate on more meaningful
    >I can see that creating something original -- a work of art, for example --
    >is a different and more fulfilling kind of task, In that case, we are
    >expressing something of ourselves, and the result is of value because it
    >reflects whatever meaning we wish to give it. I think what you are
    >advocating is living one's entire life as if it were a work of art; and
    >that's an idealistic concept that's rarely, if ever, achieved in today's
    >materialistic, fast-paced world. If you can manage to live such an ideal
    >existence, more power to you.
    >As a philosopher, the problem I see with ANY kind of life-experience is
    >it provides no insight or meaning in itself. One must have a
    >'weltanschauung' or world-view that encompasses teleology in order to find
    >meaning in existence. For the Western intellect, such a perspective can
    >only come through a rational understanding of the physical world and man's
    >place in it (ontology). Empirical knowledge is inadequate for this
    >understanding; such concepts must be arrived at intuitively, or as some
    >always say, by a 'leap of faith'. Many cling to religion as the answer to
    >everything. This, to my thinking, is simply avoiding the issue by taking
    >someone else's ideas or stategy and adopting them for our own. In life we
    >are free to choose and we take full responsibility for actions on our own
    >behalf. If our actions are not rooted in a personal philosophy -- not just
    >a set of rules handed down to us from an assumed authority -- then we have
    >failed life's responsibility to find the meaning of our own existence.
    >Responding to this thread a while back, Marsha said,
    > > What I read in ZMM and Lila, was a new perspective. Quality! Wow!!!
    >Reading ZMM made me want to
    > > experience the wind in my face, and quality in my actions.
    >I wonder whether this ecstatic outburst has any real substance to it. Has
    >Marsha experienced an epiphany over the concept "Quality = Existence"?
    >That's doubtful. Is all this parsing of Mr. Pirsig's enigmatic 'levels'
    >leading us any closer to an ultimate Truth (or Morality)? I don't think
    >By avoiding (or outright rejecting) a supernatural, primary Source on the
    >grounds that it is some kind of intellectual regression, we are left with
    >meaningless debates aimed at seeing who can express MoQ in more 'creative'
    >prose. Nihilism is the view that existence and values are unfounded.
    >Quality is just another word.for 'Goodness'. We can go round and round
    >defining what Goodness means -- everybody does -- but it's not a
    >metaphysical concept. It's just the latest expression of philosophical
    >That's why I'm disappointed.
    >But stay happy, Chin
    >MOQ.ORG -
    >Mail Archives:
    >Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    >Nov '02 Onward -
    >MD Queries -
    >To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 11 2004 - 01:42:19 GMT