Hi Marsha, This is fun.
On Nov 25, 2011, at 9:44 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Mark, > > On Nov 25, 2011, at 12:05 PM, 118 wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, > > > >> Mark: >> Well I guess this begs the question "where is the real?". > > Marsha: > You brought the words "real thing" into the conversation. When I wrote > "There is no real thing.", I could be considering that you meant the word > "thing" in an independent, objective sense, or I could be questioning your > use of "real" as in an Absolute sense, or both. Or maybe I should have > disregarded your post,,, again. I suppose I should ask you "independent" from what? We use the word "objective" to imply detached. I will agree that we are not detached, and that the word can be dropped if you want. It is often used rhetorically to provide a meaningful split between the "subjective" and the "objective". Is this split meaningless to you? If so, I can avoid using it. However, if we start to simplify language, the color it brings turns to shades of grey. > > >> Mark: >> Words are symbols, but perhaps what words convey outside the symbology is >> real. > > Marsha: > Haven't the slightest idea what this means. OK, then let me ask the following thought question: What are words used for? This may give a better idea. > > >> Mark: >> If one lives in an unreal world, one is always searching. > > Marsha: > I live in a provisional, static world interacting with DQ to a varying > degree. I am sorry you are "always searching." > If your world is provisional, what is it provisional to? > >> Mark: >> Such searching is also considered unreal, and meaningfulness is lost. > > Marsha: > What are you searching for? Many things, but the right here right now is real to me. I see no reason to hide it as if there were something more. It would seem that you operate within a fake world. If a word is not real, then what is it? If provisionality is not real, then where do you find yourself? > > >> Mark: >> What has meaning to you? > > Marsha: > It's all Value(Dynamic/static). Is Value Real to you, or is there something contingent to Value or Quality? > > >> Mark: >> Is there something behind the facade? > > Marsha: > What facade? When you say unreal it seems to imply a facade. Is there then no facade? > > > > Marsha > > Sent laboriously from my iPhone. Mark >> >> On Nov 25, 2011, at 1:11 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> The MoQ as representing reality from an empirical point-of-view is >>> Experience(unpatterned/patterned). The MoQ as representing reality >>> theoretically is epistemologically relative and ontologically >>> indeterminate. This is what is contained in my nutshell. Words are not >>> separate from static quality and only represent provincial truth. There is >>> no real thing. >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On Nov 25, 2011, at 3:48 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Marsha, >>>> All I was saying was that truth and individuals cannot be compared >>>> relatively, imo. Truth relative to the individual means, to me, what the >>>> individual takes to be true. I don't think this is Relativism, but I am >>>> happy to be corrected on this. >>>> >>>> Since your ontology cannot be divided, it cannot be subjected to >>>> Relativism. In that we agree. >>>> >>>> Any epistemology must use relative terms since it is a series of equations >>>> in the form of words; the words must relate. However, that is a >>>> description and not the real thing. I know you know this, this was for >>>> the benefit of others. >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> On Nov 24, 2011, at 11:34 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> corrected to make clearer... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 24, 2011, at 11:49 PM, 118 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Marsha, >>>>>> If you mean that truth is derived from the individual, then I agree >>>>>> wholeheartedly. If you mean that there is some outside truth that is >>>>>> interpreted differently by each individual, then I would say this goes >>>>>> against MoQ. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Mark, >>>>> >>>>> I mean 'individual' as in a flow of ever-changing, conditionally >>>>> co-dependent and impermanent, static patterns of inorganic, biological, >>>>> social and intellectual value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality. >>>>> I have the MoQ epistemologically relativistic as in static quality exists >>>>> in stable patterns relative to other patterns without independent >>>>> existence. And I have the MoQ ontologically indeterminate with Dynamic >>>>> Quality as in indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Marsha >>>>> >>>>> ___ > > > > ___ > > > 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
