Marsha said I'm not lying. Were just constellations of static patterns of value. I understand that.
Mark asks: A constellation requires an outside observer to connect the points. Are you saying that there is somebody outside creating our constellations? Or are you misusing words? On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:10 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 9, 2010, at 5:49 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > > > Marsha said: > > RMP's statement was "Quality is indivisible, undefinable and > unknowable,." but there was also that little comment about an "a logical > absurdity." > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > Yes, exactly. The MOQ is a contradiction in terms precisely BECAUSE > "Quality" is unpatterned and "metaphysics" is nothing but patterns. To > understand the distinction between static and dynamic is to understand WHY > he says it's a logical absurdity. That little comment only underscores my > point, which is still apparently quite lost on you. That same point was > expressed when I said... > > > > dmb said: > > > > Meditation is supposed to be about putting static patterns to sleep but > that is the last thing we want to do when discussing philosophical ideas. > Metaphysics isn't meditation. Metaphysics is all about precise ideas in a > coherent system of thought. Mystical experience and philosophical talk are > two very different things. It's a very bad idea to confuse these two things. > It conflates the static and the dynamic. How can you fail to see this? It's > the central distinction around which the MOQ is built. > > > > Marsha replied: > > > > I don't remember anyone designating you the arbitrator of what can be > discussed and what cannot be discussed, or how it must be discussed. I am > interested in the MoQ coming from an Eastern philosophical direction. > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > Wow. You missed the point again. It is Pirsig who says mystical reality > and philosophical talk are two very different things. That's WHY he says the > MOQ is a contradiction in terms. That's the point Pirsig was making in the > quote we are talking about. Would it help if someone else told you that > Pirsig said "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"? There is nothing wrong with approaching from the > East but how in the world do you figure that approach requires you to ignore > textual evidence from the actual author of the MOQ? That's a lame excuse, to > say the least. And never mind the fact that scholars have seen the > connection between James's view and Buddhism and they've published papers > about that connection for about 100 years. > > Marsha: > It's a matter of interpretation. My primary mission is not to support > 'contemporary pragmatism'. Your approach is your approach, Mine is > different. You can flap you gums all you want; it makes no difference to > me. The text I choose you redefine to suit your support of contemporary > pragmatism, and act as if you have channeled RMPs thoughts. For instance > where it is stated that truth is seen as relative. > > Anthony writes: > “Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and, > trial by jury. It’s worth noting that the MOQ follows a pragmatic > notion of truth so truth is seen as relative in his system while > Quality is seen as absolute. In consequence, the truth is defined > as the highest quality intellectual explanation at a given time. > (McWatt,Anthony,MOQ Textbook) > > > You seem to ignore evidence that doesn't suit your argument, ore define it. > I don't buy your strategy. > > > > > > > > Marsha said: > > > > Btw, you haven't yet acknowledged that James probably got his 'pure > experience' insights from reading the Vedic and Buddhist's texts while he > was in his twenties. I don't get that. > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > I don't think those Eastern texts had very much influence on James. His > father's mysticism, the influence of Emerson, his psychological research and > lots of particular philosophers he corresponded with all had a much stronger > influence. He not only wrote a very impressive book on psychology, he also > collected hundreds of accounts of various kinds of religious experience. In > "The Varieties of Religious Experience" the collected accounts of mystical > experiences appear in the most important concluding chapters. The whole book > leads up to that area and he was interested regardless of whether it came > from Christians or Buddhists. His approach was broader and more inclusive > than either of those. His doctrine of pure experience is the culmination of > all that and more. Like Pirsig, who equates Quality with pure experience, > he's a perennialist. > > Marsha: > The biography stated he read them _twice_ at a particularly difficult > period in his life when he was only in his late twenties. But you don't > think those texts had very much influence on him. How very Western of you! > Well, it doesn't matter to me what you think. > > > > Marsha: > > Your insults don't bother me, but they don't stand as anything meaningful > either. > > > > dmb says: > > > > Liar. > > > Marsha: > I'm not lying. Were just constellations of static patterns of value. I > understand that. > > > > > > ___ > > > 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 > 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
