Dmb, No, no, no... You want to ignore my posts, then ignore my posts.
> On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:43 PM, david buchanan wrote: >> >> dmb says: >> Another good point. Pirsig's rejection of the Cartesian self certainly >> doesn't mean the MOQ rejects any conception of the self. The MOQ's self >> includes the body as well as the mind. Marsha I don't count on you being able to separate from the mind(subject) body(object) point-of-view. And you cannot seem to keep your definitions straight or your contexts. Sorry, not interested. Marsha On Sep 9, 2011, at 4:54 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > "When X purports (through a medium of appearance) to exist in manner F, to > person P, X-as-F is illusory when X does not really exist in manner F." > > "Most generally, an illusion involves a conflict between appearance and > reality. Something, X, appears to be the case, but there is something about > X that does not reflect reality; it MISLEADS the person to whom it appears. > In other words, X PURPORTS, through the appearance, to exist in a particular > manner, when X does NOT REALLY exist in the purported manner." (Albahari, > Miri, 'Analytical Buddhism: The Two-tiered Illusion of Self ' p.122) > > > > dmb says: > > There is more than one reason why this equation can't be used against the > MOQ's claims, not least of which is the fact that none of them are predicated > on a distinction between appearance and reality. As we all know, the MOQ > rejects the distinction between subjective and objective, which is the > modern, scientific version of appearance and reality. For the radical > empiricists, experience and reality amount to the same thing. It's possible > that there could be some reality outside of our experience, beyond reality as > it appears to us, but we can only wonder and speculate. In the MOQ, > appearance is reality. Static and Dynamic Quality are both known in > experience and cannot rightly be construed as appearance and reality. They > both appear and they're both real, although the MOQ does insist that static > concepts are secondary and provisional. Which brings me to the second point. > > The equation works against certain claims, claims about what things "really" > are beyond their appearances. But notice what happens when you take the MOQ's > claim and plug that into the equation. Let "X" stand for earth, sky, heavens, > philosophy, art or science. It hardly matters because the MOQ claims that our > reality exists as a pile of analogies, every last bit of it. His "F" is the > analogy, an analogue that agrees with experience and the previous body of > analogues. His X-as-F strikes a blow against claims as to what things > "really" are. It says that your idea of the earth and sky and everything else > is just that, an idea. It says don't reify that idea, don't believe that your > idea is how things "really" are. > > > If you plug Pirsig's claim into the equation, it's like using a double > negative. You'd end up reversing yourself, because the MOQ and that equation > are both meant to work against the claims of Platonists, essentialists, > realists and the like. It would be a matter of being opposed to essentialism > AND opposed to the opponents of essentialism at the same time. > > And thirdly, the equation rests upon a kind of performative contradiction. It > pushes back against claims as to how things "really" are but to say that "X" > doesn't REALLY exist as "F", you've got to say that "X" is REALLY something > else. And how is that ever going to be anything other than an endless battle > of speculative, unverifiable, metaphysical claims? Instead, the MOQ simply > says that "X" really is just "X" and the only question is the value of "X" as > "X". The MOQ doesn't if an idea corresponds with reality as it really is, but > does it work AS an idea. It has to work in experience and so ideas agree with > reality in that sense, but this is not correspondence to an objective reality > of things so much as a good marriage between your thinking and your living. > See? > > > > > > > > > > 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
