Dear Angus,
I just want to thank you for your thinking, and say that I am here
thinking with you.
much love,
Tanya
>...But, everyone around her gave her
>their support, said she "did well", and she had this
>outpouring of emotion in her self that that is how she
>wanted to be loved all her life. The tragedy and death
>of all these people created the closest sense of love
>for her. Is that quality at work?
>
>To me that is Love at work. Love is a negative field.
>Not negative as in bad. But negative in the sense of a
>magnetic field. Love absorbs all the evil thrown out
>by those terrorists and transforms it. Love grounds
>evil, love maintains, stands proudly against the
>entropy of the world. Certainly, it happened in my
>sister. Is quality, in the same manner, a negative
>field? A sort of womb? An absorber of all things? Is
>quality love? If so, isn't love in the domain of
>humans only? Or more properly in mammals only?
. . . . .
>That would be my pointed question.
>How can you distinquish between this innate desire to
>make love out of things (mammalian need for love) with
>an inherent characteristic of the world (Quality)? It
>seems Pirsig would have to account for this mammalian
>trait precisely because the nature of Quality is so
>near to the mammalian brain's need for love and
>meaning. Otherwise, all he is doing is describing what
>he "does" to the world, not what the world is in and
>of itself.
>
>And of course it would resonate with people because
>they all want to be loved too. He would then just be
>repackaging love (which is I think what Tanya would
>"love" to hear).
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:33 BST