Marsha, Stuff that people typically call "common sense" is in fact culturally conditioned (static) socio-intellectual patterns - reflected in the SOM language we use to refer to them. Common sense is wrong. Reality is the quality that precedes those patterns - but everyday language based on common sense doesn't reflect this.
Any more and I just refer you back to Arlo's wording. Ian On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:59 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Ian, > > > On Mar 23, 2011, at 6:27 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote: > >> I agree with all of that Arlo. >> >> Your 5 line summary of the MoQ is as good a plain English statement as >> I've heard. >> >> Your conclusion is important ... far from being esoteric or >> obscurantist, the fact that MoQish expressions may "problematize" >> established common sense expressions is indeed the point. > > > >> It is commonsense as she is known that is wrong. > > > I cannot understand the this sentence. > > > Marsha > > > >> >> Ian >> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: >>> [John] >>> I agree Arlo. But all the weight of the endeavor falls upon "when >>> articulated". And when I articulate, I'm trying to be understood, in plain >>> terms of common understanding. ... So what is it that we all experience, and >>> even describe to one another as a "quality experience". By this, we mean a >>> "good" experience. >>> >>> [Arlo] >>> I know what you *mean*, but by framing it this way you are certainly *not* >>> helping the person you are talking to understand why a MOQ is a >>> revolutionary, and better, way to think about the cosmos. >>> >>> I don't know why for you its not "plain english" to simply say something >>> like, "Our western approach has been historically based on a subject-object >>> metaphysics, and our language reveals that. Within a MOQ, this worldview is >>> reversed, so that Quality precedes subjects and objects, it is not something >>> 'objective' nor is it something 'subjective'. A MOQ says that Quality *is* >>> experience, so a phrase like "quality experience" is not only unnecessarily >>> redundant, but mistakenly adheres to the subject-object view that "quality" >>> is an adjective that can be applied to certain 'things'." >>> >>> How would something like this not be "plain english"? How is something like >>> this "esoteric" or cryptic or evidencing a "secret language"? >>> >>> Of course, I also refuse to use phrases like "free gift" and when people use >>> it I ask them if they normal charge people for their gifts. And a few >>> seasons back while watching a football game with a friend we heard the >>> announcer say something about the runner's "forward progress". I made a >>> comment about that ("is there any other kind?"), and my friend to this day >>> says he can't hear that phrase without thinking how wrong it is. >>> >>> Sometimes the best thing we can do for people is "problematize" their >>> "common understanding"... >>> >>> >>> 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 > > > > ___ > > > 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
