Marsha: Speaking of "Please notice" I have noticed that you have expanded your understanding of 'reify' beyond the 7-word sentence found in some dictionary that you insisted upon last December. Good job!
On May 1, 2011, at 1:25 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Please notice the difference between the following statements. (1) Things do > not exist inherently or independently. (2) Things do not exist. > The first statement makes a negative claim about the nature of things. It > qualifies the existence of things by denying that they are permanent or > essential or that they exist in isolation from each other, that they are > discrete, discontinuous entities in themselves. The second statement simply > denies any kind of existence at all. The first statement pushes back against > Platonism, essentialism, objectivity and other forms of reification. The > second statement far more drastic, maybe even ridiculous. The aspirin I'm > about to take may not have anything like an independent or inherent existence > but I fully expect that it really will relieve my pain. And I stop at red > lights too, despite the fact that it's JUST a conventional reality. We can > reject the metaphysical premise behind scientific materialism and still be > afraid whenever anyone ever points a gun at us. There are concrete realities > and practical consequences that can't just be sweep under the rug, or > shrugged off with as ce > tic indifference. The MOQ is not some magic chant that makes the world > dissolve into misty dreams. > Yes, the mysticism and the Zen are very, very important central elements. But > it's also about fixing things and the good cuts of meat. It's also a form of > pragmatism that says our normal, conventional reality cannot function without > quality. Remember that thought experiment in ZAMM wherein Pirsig takes us > through a grocery store with no quality and how drastically that was changed? > The title of ZAMM is just about enough to let you know that it's aimed at a > kind of re-enchantment of the ordinary, finding the Buddha in the gears of > bike or, as James would put it, returning philosophy to the earth of things. > It is decidedly NOT otherworldly. Don't you think? Even its mysticism is NOT > otherworldly. Don't you think? And what other reality do we ever have? I > think it would be best to reject the existence of reality as we understand it > conventionally and conceptually only between meals and never while you're > driving. > >> Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 11:18:58 -0400 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will >> >>> Marsha: >>> I un-ask the question. Wherever those preferences lie, they do not >>> inherently exist. >> >> >> Steve: >> The MOQ says that the only things that exist are such preferences >> (patterns of value). Locating such preferences in a subject is an >> inference from the preferences, so the subject borrows any existence >> it can be thought of as having from the patterns of preference from >> which it is inferred. There is no "I" that stands out side of patterns >> of value (except for the capacity for patterns to change). In other >> words, what you are (and what a rock or tree or thunderstorm is) is >> collection of likes and dislikes, loves and hates, desires and >> aversions. When you peal that onion there is only emptiness (DQ). >> 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
