On Apr 14, 2011, at 1:22 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:
> [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]
> Given this, what is the problem with saying "Pirsig says..."?
Here was my statement:
>> Marsha:
>> I am stating that individual or a collection, static patterns of value are
>> provisional truths and do not inherently exist. I interpret "illusion" 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.
Saying "Pirsig says..." is not a problem. Differentiating between "MoQ says"
and "Pirsig says..." seems pedantic given that both statements represent static
quality. And I cannot understand the difference between between the two forms
of static quality being so important. It's all analogy. It's all static
value.
>
> [Marsha]
> I do not know of anything that inherently exists.
>
> [Arlo]
> If neither "The MOQ" nor "Pirsig" inherently exist, why do you have a problem
> with "Pirsig says..." but not "The MOQ says..."?
Marsha:
They are both static value, on what basis are you differentiating? You point
doesn't make sense to me from a MoQ perspective.
> [Marsha]
> Pirsig is a name given as a useful symbol standing for the collection of
> static patterns of value that have Pirsig.
>
> [Arlo]
> So how does this deny using "Pirsig says..."? Do you think "Pirsig wrote
> ZMM"? Or should we not say that as well?
Marsha:
It doesn't deny the validity of using "Pirsig says..." It diminishes the
differentiation. imho.
> [Marsha]
> Your choice between "The MoQ says" and "Pirsig says" seems very pedantic.
>
> [Arlo]
> So you think "The MOQ" speaks?
Marsha:
I think "The MoQ" is an intellectual static pattern of value. Static patterns
of value are interrelated. In some cases that relationship may be with a vocal
mechanism.
> [Arlo]
> Does it do anything else? While this may explain the voices in your head,
> "The MOQ" does not speak, "The MOQ" is a collection of words spoken BY Robert
> Pirsig.
Marsha:
Conventionally, the MoQ speaks to me. It did from the first time I read LILA.
> [Arlo]
> I understand, to be sure, why you would want to promote "The MOQ says...".
> This is necessary for the interpretive legitimacy argument, as it turns
> everyone, even Pirsig, into "interpreters" of what "The MOQ says".
Marsha:
Your interpretive legitimacy argument seemed like a red herring to me. I have
no dog in that circus act.
> [Arlo]
> You can't make a bid for interpretative legitimacy, in other words, if its
> "Pirsig" speaking, but you can if Pirsig is just another interpretor of "The
> MOQ" speaking.
Marsha:
While I offered some quotes I thought pertinent, I didn't participate in the
thread discussion.
> [Marsha]
> 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]
> No, neither are "more real". Such concepts as "more real" are the illusions
> of S/O thinking.
Marsha:
I agree. So why differentiate between them. Seems overly fussy to me.
> [Marsha]
> An inherently existing entity would be one that exists independently.
>
> [Arlo]
> Why does "Pirsig says" imply to you "inherent existence", but "The MOQ says"
> does not?
Marsha:
It doesn't imply it to me. To me it's all DQ/sq. It was how I was interpreting
your point-of-view.
> [Arlo]
> Why do you move away from "Pirsig says", if its because such a word choice
> implies "inherent existence", but you don't find the same fault with "The MOQ
> says..."?
Marsha:
I think it's all analogy for both, and both subject to interpretation.
> [Arlo asked]
> 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.
>
> [Arlo]
> "Inherent" means "involved in the constitution or essential character of
> something; belonging by nature or habit: intrinsic, hardwired, native,
> natural, innate, ingrained, indigenous, immanent; existing in someone or
> something as a permanent, inseparable element, quality, or attribute".
>
> It does not mean "independent".
Marsha:
Okay, the dictionary doesn't not reference 'independent'. They are synonyms
within the Buddhist literature. Perhaps the reference to 'permanent' ' and
'inseparably' will work. If you lookup 'inhere,' you will see the word
'intrinsically' can be added. In case your are interested, here is a Buddhist
explanation:.
http://kwelos.tripod.com/metaphysics/inherentexistence.htm
___
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
