Hi John On Mar 31, 2010, at 11:52 AM, John Carl wrote:
> Good Morning Marsha, > > It's snowing! Fairly rare for here. Enough to notice anyway... What elevation are you above sea level? > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:55 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I want to make one point is that according to the MoQ, "Reality" is just >> as >>> undefinable as Quality, eh? >> >> Yes. Reality=Quality, and from my experience Quality is unpatterned >> experience >> and patterned experience. >> > > Patterned plus unpatterned pretty much covers everything, I'd say. But > isn't there something special about the term Quality, which implies a > transcendance over mere "reality". I mean, if it's just a word for Reality, > then why bother? Call ourselves "Metaphysicians of Reality", and call it a > day. Yes, no and all of the above! Can't see how to answer your question in a logical way: "Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there is a knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things. A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics. Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition and since Quality is essentially outside definition, this means that a 'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity." (LILA,Chapter 5) Did I mention that I accept paradox. That is, of course, if there was an I and a separate thing labeled 'paradox'. I'm not sure what kind of answer you are expecting? If I were a Buddhist scholar, maybe the word wouldn't seem special at all. When I first read ZMM, I had moved from the frustrations of Eastern (Raja yoga) philosophy to the frustrations of Western philosophy, and at that point Quality seemed the most perfect word and explanation I could imagine. Maybe you should explain to me what you think makes the word 'Quality' special. >>> So don't make an ambiguous assumption on the meaning of reality in that >>> SOM definition and equate it with what the MoQ is saying about Reality. >> >> I'm not clearly understanding your complaint??? >> >> > > The main point I was making is in the subtle transference of meaning of > reality from a Q context to a SOM one in the same equation. But it's not > really a complaint so much as a "hmmmm" - ponder. At this point I could just as easily say Reality(unpatterned experience & patterned experience,) but RMP has used so many explanations and analogies for the practical use of the MoQ/Quality in LILA, SODV, etc. More is wonderful but less is perfect. Maybe, again, I need to ask for more explanation from you. >>> Well, I agree intellectual can only mean formalized s/o, >>> as you say. I just disagree that the 4th level is intellectual. >>> I guess I'd have to appeal to a higher authority on that. >>> Is there such a thing as "higher authority"? >> >> >> >> Statically I assume there may be many: James, Rorty, Dewey, Royce, Pierce, >> Aristotle, Plato, Joseph Campbell, Wikepedia, etc., etc., etc.,,,, Take >> your pick. >> Did I miss anyone? >> >> >> Marsha >> >> > > Yeah! The guy I was thinking of was mr R.M.P himself who came up with the > names and the levels. I admire his genius, everything known and everything unknown. > But it raises interesting questions in my mind as to > whether we as a group can decide things for ourselves, seeing freshly for > ourselves what is good and what is not good, without appeals to authority > figures. Interesting question. > That's an ongoing debate that isn't discussed much. Do you rely on intuition? > > I'll be home for lunch today and I'll post some more then, for now, I'm off > to trudge through the snow. What? Did you get 30 inches of snow? That would be trudging. Marsha ___ 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/md/archives.html
