On Jun 8, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Krimel wrote: > [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: There is something paradoxical when speaking in a subject/object language and all that it projects, primarily an separate object. Maybe it is best to leave the word 'reality' for the Subject/Object Metaphysics, where Reality = subjects and objects. The Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ) then represents Quality(unpatterned experience/ patterned experience). It is easier to live it than to talk about it! > 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. Like those double negatives, do you? I do. - In the Oxford dvd, RMP points to the Veda's equivalent definition of Quality/DQ being 'not this, not that'. I have read, too, that the only way to _approach_ Quality/UltimateTruth is by realizing something is false. Either way these statements seem to be pointing to understanding beyond the static quality/conventional reality. Statically/conventionally I can accept, even embrace, ever-changing, interdependent, relative, impermanent patterns. I just don't want to be fooled by them. > 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. I doubt that dmb would deny that we are static quality. And I wouldn't deny that we are static quality or, from a Buddhist pov, existing in a conventional/relative reality. > That is not the way I understand either the MoQ or > Buddhism for that matter. I will not deny static patterns or conventional reality. > We decide for ourselves what Reality equals and what "qualities" it possesses. We? Decide? Ourselves? I cannot agree with this sentence. It sounds delusional. > Pirsig, the way I read him, is saying that the best way to begin constructing > meaning is to look for patterns. Didn't he say that rather than Lila having Quality, that Quality had Lila. Given this, I don't know how to interpret this. Marsha p.s. I don't like you programming/computer metaphor. I left that behind many moons ago along with the clock/machine metaphor, I've move on to the entanglement analogy sprinkled with a heavy dose of uncertainty principle. ___ 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
