Greetings Jon,
On Apr 17, 2010, at 8:08 PM, Jon Bennett wrote: > MarshaV, > Again Marshsa, how do you determine reality. The word 'determine' suggest how I think about reality, and I do think about reality, but reality is experience: unpatterned experiences and patterned experiences. I am not elevating a gut feeling, but reporting actual experiences as best I can without exaggeration. > What is your epistemology. Knowledge is unpatterned and direct, and conceptually based on the patterns of the past. > Did you arrive at the definition of reality given below through the > use of your reason, your senses, or did you have a revelation > from "quality". All of the above and some insight gained through meditation. > Or did you get this definition from the revealed truth of another, who wrote > it in a book. Certainly I have gained wisdom from exploring the words of others, RMP's most explicitly, but I have read some very, very profound Buddhist texts too, and there is meditation, and mindfulness. BUT, I have had some simple unpatterned experiences that demonstrate, first hand, the truth of the wisdom. >> From a political standpoint, let me say unequivocally, absolutely, as an > objective truth, fact or whatever you choose to call it, that the rights of > man, individual liberty, including their protection in law, and political > institutions that protect them, did not and could not ever have arisen from > such a definition of reality as you have just given. What you list are static patterns of value, relative truths. But I do not accept that 'relative' implies 'equal'. The spovs you mention have proved to have high value because of their usefulness, and they tend to promote individual freedom. The MoQ has a hierarchical structure of levels which assigns patterns within each level more value then patterns within the levels below. > To the contrary, you have defined reality in a way that invites, and has > historically resulted, in tyranny. Ideas have consequences. Patterns (ideas) do have consequences, and I believe the most important understanding is the nature of all patterns. While a pattern may belong to a discrete level, it is not independent, autonomous phenomenon or concept, but an ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent occurrence. My stress in defining reality is always on the nature of patterns, because it seems to be that it is by mistaking patterns to be independent "real" entities great harm and confusion is created. It's SOM, subject/object thinking, versus the MoQ, and I'm stressing the nature of patterns as quality. I'm trying to, anyway. To understand the nature of patterns is to gain wisdom and freedom, not tyranny. Marsha > Reality is Quality(Dynamic Quality(unpatterned experience)/static > quality(patterned experience(inorganic,biological,social&intellectual > patterns))) > > So what do you have in mind for Truth with a capital T? Or are you talking > about politics with a small t? > > > > Marsha > >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 17, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Jon Bennett wrote: >> >>> Hi MarshaV, >>> >>> I am interested in Truth with a capital T, as Francis Shcaeffer would >> say. >>> Much to be said on this, but for starters, its not truth as I or as you >> or >>> as anybody wishes it. It's Truth that IS regardless of what you think >> about >>> it, or if you even understand or perceive it. >>> >>> The first thing that strikes me about our current crisis of truth, is >> that >>> we should even ask what it means. Would you ask what a lie means, what >>> deceit, falsehood, or error means. But we are in such a crisis and that >> is >>> what P's books address. >>> >>> Political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, the >>> understanding of human rights and the laws that protect these did not >> arise >>> out of a vacuum, out of a nothingness. They arose out of a very specific >>> understanding of Truth, with a capital T. And the elimination, the denial >> of >>> those freedoms and rights, arise out of a specific "understanding" , >> truly a >>> misunderstanding of truth, as well. >>> >>> Even the understanding of an individual, whether an individual human >> being, >>> or individual human rights, or individual laws that protect and preserve >>> them, or the idea of an individual thing or entity, are based in >>> philosophical and ultimately theological assumptions. >>> >>> The very reason I am free to write and you are free to read these words, >> is >>> based on just such philosophical and theological assumptions that were >>> extended to moral, legal, and political institutions. >>> >>> And where different assumptions prevail we would not be able to speak so >>> freely. All cultures, religions, and philosophies do not lead to the same >>> understanding and protections of human rights and individual liberties. >>> >>> That is why we should seek a genuine, a True understanding of history and >>> the ideas behind it. And why we should work out our paradigms with "fear >> and >>> trembling". >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jon >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 3:43 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hello Jon, >>>> >>>> On Apr 16, 2010, at 11:57 PM, Jon Bennett wrote: >>>> >>>>> But beyond this-what makes something good anyway? What makes something >>>> just. >>>>> You must start by telling me your epistemology. You must have a valid >> way >>>> of >>>>> knowing truth, or you are playing a wishing game. >>>> >>>> What type of truth are you wishing for? >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> And without such a reliable foundation, someone will impose their truth >>>> on >>>>> you, and take away your liberty. >>>> >>>> And in the light of truth as you wish it, how is this statement true? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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
