From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Nov 10 2004 - 04:49:44 GMT
Ham to Mel
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:48 PM
Subject: RE: MD On Transcendence
Ham:
> Transcending does not mean simply
> encompassing higher and higher levels of physical reality, ad infinitum.
> It signifies a different reality altogether. ...
>
Mel:
> good point...I do run the risk of equivocating on that,
> but it also seems to me that non-being, in the sense of
> manifesting or Dynamic Quality might be a different
> quality of being rather than simple physical reality...
In fact, what Pirsig calls Quality may not be "being" at all. It may be a
cosmic force or energy that encompasses all. If it were defined that way,
it could conceivably be regarded as the transcendent primary source.
However, I'm not inclined to elevate even Value to that status. Attributes
like Quality and Value, no matter how encompassing we try to make them,
still allude to the experience of an observer in my opinion. Hence, unless
we take extreme liberties with common word definitions, they remain
dualistic references.
>
Essentially yours,
Ham
>
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 : Wed Nov 10 2004 - 09:36:09 GMT