On Aug 13, 2011, at 9:30 AM, X Acto wrote:
>
>
> Andre said:
> ... Marsha also argues that because something is only conventionally real,
> and not ultimately real she doesn't accept it as being relevant FROM A MOQ
> POINT-OF-VIEW! Now this is serious. Apart from the 'free-will' discussion
> that has been going on for a while Marsha claims it is irrelevant! Why is it
> 'irrelevant'? Because it isn't 'ultimately real'. She cites Buddhist
> insights, Garfield, Nagarjuna and a host of others to substantiate her claims
> and fundamental position (of non-acceptance of anything...seemingly). But my
> question to Marsha is "why"? What point are you trying to make? What
> contribution are you trying to make to the MOQ by maintaining this position?
> YOU my dear nullify, disarm, annihilate and evaporate any well meant
> discussion about anything even remotely relevant. And all imho of course.
>
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> Exactly. It's only conventional reality. As if we have some other option. As
> if the "Ultimate" reality is somewhere over the rainbow. By Marsha's
> reasoning, every single thing that anyone could ever say is irrelevant to the
> MOQ because it's not "ultimately" real. Just like the bombs that dropped on
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I suppose. This is know-nothingism with a new-agey,
> faux-Buddhist veneer. It's empty-heaed anti-intellectualism, served with a
> dollop of snark on crackers.
>
> And of course, what's irrelevant is the ontological status of bullets. It
> simply doesn't matter if they have essential, independent or eternal
> existence or not - and nobody said they did anyway. But they will kill you
> all the same. If a gun is pointed at you, does it matter that the bullet is
> only conventionally real? Hell, no. Is it any comfort to anyone to say the
> guy with a bullet hole in his head is only conventionally dead?
>
>
> Don't know about you, but that's the only kind of dead that concerns me. What
> other kind is there?
>
>
>
> Ron says:
> This is the same problem faced by the philosophers of ancient Geece, The
> Sophists introduced
> relativism and along side of that, there were those siding with Heraticlus
> that since eveything
> is change and flux, nothing true can be said about anything. Quite a problem,
> anything that
> can be said is relative. Parmenides even warns Socrates about this in his
> theory of forms
> that we can only understand an idea in relation to other ideas.But one can
> certainly understand
> why Socrates would contend that ideas have more permanence, more "real-ness"
> more meaning
> than an everchanging relative reality that nothing of any true meaning can
> ever be said about.
>
> Yet as DmB states we experience the true every day and as Dan stated that
> true-ness often
> comes in the form of mistakes.
>
> So I would'nt readily call Socrates a liar and a cheat and it is quite
> debatable whether or
> not Socrates is merely Plato's mouth peice. I think the Socratic dialogs are
> much more complex
> in that they serve as a case history of the difficulties in philosophy.
Hi Ron,
What I actually presented to dmb, which he chose to ignore, was the following:
*** ON FREEDOM:
"To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality
it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality,
which is undefinable, one's behavior is free." - (RMP,LILA: Chapter 12)
*** ON AN ETHICAL CODE:
"Dharma, like rta, means 'what holds together.' It is the basis of all order.
It equals righteousness. It is the ethical code. It is the stable condition
which gives man perfect satisfaction.
"Dharma is duty. It is not external duty which is arbitrarily imposed by
others. It is not any artificial set of conventions which can be amended or
repealed by legislation. Neither is it internal duty which is arbitrarily
decided by one's own conscience. Dharma is beyond all questions of what is
internal and what is external. Dharma is Quality itself, the principle of
'rightness' which gives structure and purpose to the evolution of all life and
to the evolving understanding of the universe which life has created." -
(RMP, LILA: Chapter 30)
*** ON MORAITY:
"... The funny thing was that when she said he was trying to kill her, that was
insane - but it wasn't entirely incorrect. He was trying to kill her - not the
biological Lila, but the static patterns that were really going to kill her if
she didn't let go.
"From the static point of view the whole escape into Dynamic Quality seems like
a death experience. It's a movement from something to nothing. How can
'nothing' be any different from death? Since a Dynamic understanding doesn't
make the static distinctions necessary to answer that question, the question
goes unanswered. All the Buddha could say was, 'See for yourself.'
"When early Western investigators first read the Buddhist texts they too
interpreted nirvana as some kind of suicide. There's a famous poem that goes:
While living,
Be a dead man.
Be completely dead,
And then do as you please.
And all will be well.
"It sounds like something from a Hollywood horror-film but it's about nirvana.
The Metaphysics of Quality translates it:
While sustaining biological and social patterns
Kill all intellectual patterns.
Kill them completely
And then follow Dynamic Quality
And morality will be served.
...
"The Metaphysics of Quality translated karma as 'evolutionary garbage.' That's
why it sounded so funny as the name of a boat. It seemed to suggest she had
arrived in Kingston on a garbage scow. Karma is the pain, the suffering that
results from clinging to the static patterns of the world. The only exit from
the suffering is to detach yourself from these static patterns, that is, to
'kill' them." - (RMP, LILA: Chapter 32)
___
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
