On Aug 22, 2010, at 12:51 PM, David Thomas wrote: > On 8/22/10 10:08 AM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Marsha: >>>> Patterns existing "outside our concepts of them" seems to make it a SOM >>>> issue, >>>> but I could be wrong. Do patterns exist as independent entities? >>> [Dave] >>> Depends. If you want to looked at them universally then, no. All patterns >>> are parts of smaller and larger patterns such that ultimately all is one. >>> >>> But this is not very helpful idea when trying to make breakfast. >> Marsha >> I don't know about you, buy I don't metaphysically scramble eggs. >> I just fix them. >> >>> [Dave] >>> The belief that supping on the concept of a egg is the same as dining on >>> "independent entity" egg in your refrigerator, will eventually will lead to >>> the >>> demise of the pattern Marsha. >> Marsha >> I fix eggs, chop wood and carry water. >> >>> [Dave] >>> Pragmatism would say, "Yes, that it is reasonable thing >>> to believe their really is an "outside world out there" until a better way >>> of understanding that experience comes along." >> Marsha >> I don't even make a determination if an egg is pragmatically >> believable, or not, while I am preparing one. >> >>> [Dave] >>> But there hasn't been one to date. It leaves open the possibility >>> that all is illusion, but suggests it would not be prudent to act as >>> if this is true. >> Marsha >> While discussing the MoQ, it is most appropriate to question the nature >> static patterns of value. If static patterns of value present all that can >> be conceptualized, where 'outside our concepts' do they exist? >> > [Dave] > Most of what you say above is parroting "Zen Talk." Prior to being to > exposed to it, however you where, in the context of the question you asked > and my response, you would have considered this affected babble. I still do.
Marsha: This is one way not to answer the question. It is a bunch of projection based on nothing. Nothing! > >> Marsha >> seems to make it a SOM issue, > > [Dave] > What you really would like to have said was, "SOL issue." Given your longing > for and belief in Bo's ideas yes this is an "issue" for you. Pirsig claims > the MoQ is perfectly compatible with scientific realism. As long as you remember it's just an idea. > You know, like the idea that world will keep going around without you, or > me, or concepts like patterns of quality. What do you know and how do you know it are legitimate metaphysical questions? > > A while back I caught a brief clip of the Dali Lama in an interview where > the reporter ask him about Buddhism's denial of self. The glint in his eyes > and the gruffness in his voice said more than his words. He said something > to the effect, Who is the stupid ass who claims this. What do you change if > you do not change yourself. I would have loved to seen the look on the > reporter's face. A real life version of the ending to the whole series of > guru on the mountaintop jokes. Marsha: The Dalai Lama said something 'to the effect'??? 'In effect' is not something the Dalai Lama said? What a dramatic technique to say nothing! The 'self' hasn't even been mentioned in this post, so what is this response? A projection, or diversion? As a metaphysical topic, it is very appropriate to question the nature of static patterns of value. You know, metaphysics? Like in Metaphysics of Quality. ___ 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
