At 06:55 PM 3/5/2009, you wrote:
Marsha you posted Wed, 04 Mar 2009 06:14:14 -0500:
> > >Marsha said to David Swift:
> > >Philosophizing indeed, and with such a
> > >distinguished list as Hobbes, Hume, Locke and Kant. It's hard to
> > >believe there would be exact agreement between these philosophers,
> > >especially in regards to a word like 'feeling' with its many
> > >definitions and multiple layers of connotation. Maybe you can
> > >offer some quotes as evidence to establish their agreement of usage
> > >and definition. ...'Feeling' like all sq is sometimes
> > >conventionally useful and has a beauty of its own.
> > >dmb says:
> > >I think that's right. Feelings and instincts would
> > >probably be a static biological response to DQ. Hume was an
> > >empiricist and so is Pirsig but there is an important distinction
> > >between the traditional forms of empiricism and the radical
> > >empiricism of the MOQ. The former is also called sensory empiricism
> > >because it holds that the external objective world comes to us
> > >through the senses, through the sense organs, and it does so from
> > >within the assumptions of subject-object metaphysics. The radical
> > >empiricism of William James, which is adopted by the MOQ, differs
> > >from this by both rejecting the metaphysical assumptions and by
> > >expanding the notion of what counts as empirical evidence. In
> > >traditional empiricism we experience reality through the
> >senses but in radical empiricism experience is reality.
> > >DS says:
> > >Thanks for making the distinction. Are you all in
> > >agreement that TiTs don't exist in MoQ? Have you gone completely
> > >over to the idealism of Schopenhauer? If so what sense do you make
> > >of the inorganic SQ level?
> >Marsha said:
> >For me there are no TiTs, not even on the Inorganic Level.
> >Not rocks, not mountains, not atoms are discreet entities. No
> >phenomenon, no static patterns of value have inherent existence. I
> >am not a Materialist or an Idealist. Rocks, mountains and atoms
> >exist conventionally, but are empty of inherent existence.
> >DS asked:
> >This a puzzling development. How can the first static quality
> >level exist without TiTs? And how can anything be conventional and
> >how can we talk to each other without the third level?
>Marsha said:
>I do not understand the underlying assumptions of your
> questions. There are no independent patterns (entities). There are
>no patterns (entities) not dependent on causes and condition.
>There are no patterns (entities)
>not in the constant state of change. There are no patterns
>(entities)without aggregates. Patterns (entities) known are
>conceptual constructs. Patterns (entities) are ever-changing,
>interrelated and interconnected processes.
>
>DS asked:
>So if the inorganic level is purely conceptual are we purely
>conceptual too? It's hard to believe that nothing, not even us, are real?
Marsha answered:
Real? Conventionally real or Ultimately real? I'm not denying
phenomenon other than what is conceptually constructed, only saying
it is beyond definition. There is direct experience, but the knowing about
that experience is conceptually constructed. There are two realities, a
conventional reality and an Ultimate reality, or in MOQ terms, a static
reality and a Dynamic reality. These two realities are mutually
interdependent. imho - The self is an ever-changing, collection of
interrelated and interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and
intellectual, static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
Hello Marsha, thanks for bearing with me:
Old age must have made me thick. If I understand you correctly, I feel much
better. Are you saying that there are TiTs but we can never know them or
define them because they are always in flux and we don't have the equipment
to follow? Is that what dmb means by "our experience is reality"? On the
ultimate level I can agree with that. Are you also saying that our current
experience of DQ can only be understood in reference to our previous
experience of DQ, that is, SQ? If I have it please just let the thread die.
Otherwise correct me please. By the way, you last sentence, the definition
of self, joined philosophy, science and literature together for me. Thanks
-david swift
Marsha:
David,
TiTs as independent, separate objects, or inherently existent
entities, do not exist. **I'm not denying phenomenon other than what
is conceptually constructed, only saying it is beyond our
conceptualizations.** I am affirming nothing. I am not in any way
affirming the existence of TiTs.
TiTs are thought to be independent things (entities). There are no
independent things because everything exists dependent on causes and
conditions, is in a constant state of change, is an aggregate or has
aggregates, is conceptually constructed, and is in a constant state
of change.
Marsha
.
_____________
Science does not know its debt to imagination. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
.
.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
