On Apr 14, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: > [Marsha] > It seemed that Arlo was address ""Pirsig says" as an inherently existing > self, which he is not. > > [Arlo] > Are you suggesting that Pirsig does not exist, and for this reason can't > speak?
Marsha: I am stating that RMP does not inherently (independently) exist. He exists as a collection of conceptually constructed, interdependent static patterns of value. > [Arlo] > Who speaks, then, if not Pirsig (and you, and me, and...)? Marsha: Pirsig is a name given as a useful symbol standing for the collection of static patterns of value that have Pirsig. > [Arlo] > Should I not attribute your words here to "you", since you are not an > inherently existing self? Marsha: You may by convention attribute the words here to me. Just to remind you on where this discussion originated: (note: Per Horse replace the word 'fiction' with the word 'illusion'.) >>> >>> [Arlo] >>> This doesn't answer my question. Are you suggesting that 'collections of >>> static patterns' are 'fictions', but 'individual static patterns' are not? >>> >>> Also, I'm not sure what your point is. I had said "The MOQ doesn't say >>> anything, Pirsig does", to which you replied "Pirsig is a fiction", as if >>> to imply that this would be a difference to you between "The MOQ says" and >>> "Pirsig says". >> >> Marsha: >> I am stating that individual or a collection, static patterns of value are >> provisional truths and do not inherently exist. I interpret "fictionl" with >> being provisional and not Ultimately real, both will collapse the moment one >> examines them. As a metaphysical discussion group, it is the nature of >> reality that I am trying to understand. Your choice between "The MoQ says" >> and "Pirsig says" seems very pedantic. >> >> >>> If I say, "The MOQ doesn't say anything, Pirsig does", and you reply with >>> the sentiment "both the MOQ and Pirsig are fictions, as well as you and >>> me", what's the point? >> >> Marsha: >> One is not more or less fictitious than the other. Do you think the MoQ, an >> intellectual static pattern of value, is more real than Mr. Pirsig, a >> collection of static patterns of value? If yes, how could that be if in >> either case it is static quality? > [Arlo] > You seemed very irate the other day when you felt you were maliciously > misquoted, Marsha: I was never irate. You are projecting... > [Arlo] > since you are not an inherently existing self, and cannot say anything, why > does it matter which words are and are not attributed to you? Marsha: I can hold the 'not this, not that' dynamic understanding and still enjoy participation in the static/provisional reality. I'm not an either/or kind of girl. > [Arlo] > You use "inherently", does that mean you suggest that Pirsig is not a part of > nature? Marsha: An inherently existing entity would be one that exists independently. RMP is a collection of interdependent static patterns. Are you asking about the relationship between RMP and the intellectual static pattern of value associated with the name 'nature'? I am sure there is an interrelationship. > [Arlo] > Do you think anything "inherently" exists? Marsha: I do not know of anything that inherently exists. > [Arlo] > Did the bombs that drop on Nagasaki and Hiroshima "inherently" exist? Marsha: No. The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are interdependent static patterns of value; they interdependently exist. ___ 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
