HI Dan, This RMP reply sounds like a 'yes, no and all of the above' type of answer, one I cannot help but admire. What do you think?
Marsha On Dec 28, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Dan Glover wrote: > Hello everyone > > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:35 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: >> Good morning Marsha, >> >> John earlier: >> >>> Experience can't be what you describe, either unpatterned or without >>>> staticity. The very defining of experience requires a static pattern in >>>> order to be experienced. The idea of "before" is itself a static pattern >>> of >>>> existence relative to time and obviates the pure nullity you postulate, >>> imo. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> I did not define unpatterned experience because such an experience cannot >>> be bound by words, and I certainly did not use the word 'before'. >> >> >> >> Well you don't have to use the word if you imply it, and otherwise it seems >> sorta nonsensical, so I do some construing there. >> >> This could be quite a challenge, dialectically speaking, you say something >> that doesn't make sense to me, and I say to you , that doesn't make sense to >> me and then you reply it's not supposed to make sense because its impossible >> to make sense. >> >> To which I reply, "oh. Ok." >> >> >> But "unpatterened experience" is far worse because its a >>>> philosophical self-contradiction. >>>> >>>> A metaphysics no-no. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> Is it a philosophical self-contradiction in the same way as seeing orange >>> or blue? If not, than how is it a philosophical self-contradiction? >>> >>> >>> >> It's a contradiction because experience is a patterning. Thus you can't >> have "unpatterned patterning" in a philosophically logical way. Not unless >> you want to do some explaining of yourself young lady! >> >> >> >>>> But if you think the words you use are false, then I have to wonder why >>> you >>>> use them? >>> >>> Marsha: >>> Words are static patterns of value. Value has me. >>> >>> >> Ah, well that clears it up nicely. > > Hi Marsha and John > > During work on the LC project, I had the opportunity to ask Robert > Pirsig about what you seem to be discussing here... > > "DG: > ...how experience can > be synonymous with Dynamic Quality? Isn’t experience that which we define?" > > "RMP: > Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. > Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic > Quality. But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and > no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly that > Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because > definition never exhausts it." (LILA'S CHILD) > > Does that help? > > Dan > >> >> >> >>>> Isn't the idea of words that we use them for truth? >>> >>> Marsha: >>> Value creates 'we'. >>> >>> >> Only if it's in the mood. >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> I mean, we know when we shoot for the moon we'll miss, but at least it >>>> provides a big fat aim point. >>> >>> >>> Marsha: >>> Experience is experience is experience. >>> >>> >> Succinctly, redundantly tautological. >> >> Catchy, but nonsensical. >> >> I can hum the tune, but I doubt anybody'd dance to it. Try taking some >> lessons from Ron. >> >> John, tapping his toes. >> 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/ >> > 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/ _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
