[Bo] Tell me the thick-headed the explanatory force of declaring Reality = X without the X having some "creation", "fall-out" or "expression"? As not to give you a chance to escape out on some tangent I limit myself to this issue.
[Krimel] Ok, the Pollyanna in me is forcing me to respond but she really hurt my arm. Reality=X in the language of pseudo-math could only mean that Reality is undefined. Whatever we say about it misses something and perhaps something important. Marsha seems to get this with her frequent "not this, not that" mantra but I think that misses the point as well. It isn't not "not this, not that" either. Sometimes it really is this or that or close enough for government work or at least good enough to talk about in those terms. Reality in the Capital R sense isn't just undefined it is utterly meaningless. Meaning is something we humans make out of Reality. Marsha and the dmb AWGIs kind of get this but seem to think it suggests that there is no reality at all. That is not the way I understand either the MoQ or Buddhism for that matter. We decide for ourselves what Reality equals and what "qualities" it possesses. Pirsig, the way I read him, is saying that the best way to begin constructing meaning is to look for patterns. All else is commentary. 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
