Marsha,
On Nov 25, 2011, at 2:10 PM, 118 wrote: > > Mark: > This is fun. Marsha: I suspect a mild form of insanity. > On Nov 25, 2011, at 9:44 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> 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. > > Mark: > 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. Marsha: I have no idea what you are talking about. >>> Mark: >>> Words are symbols, but perhaps what words convey outside the symbology is >>> real. >> >> Marsha: >> Haven't the slightest idea what this means. > > Mark: > OK, then let me ask the following thought question: What are words used for? > This may give a better idea. Marsha: I do not know for certain. What do you think? >>> 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." >> > IMark: > f your world is provisional, what is it provisional to? Marsha: I should have said I live in a conventional, static world. >>> Mark: >>> Such searching is also considered unreal, and meaningfulness is lost. >> >> Marsha: >> What are you searching for? > > Mark: > 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? Marsha: I meant provincial or conventional world. What _seems to you_ about me is your problem because I cannot related to anything you've written. >>> Mark: >>> What has meaning to you? >> >> Marsha: >> It's all Value(Dynamic/static). > > Mark: > Is Value Real to you, or is there something contingent to Value or Quality? Marsha: I might repeat the positive tetralemma that Jay Garland put together: Everything is _conventionally_ real. Nothing is _Ultimately_ real. Everything is both _conventionally_ real and _Ultimately_ unreal. Nothing is either _conventionally_ unreal or _Ultimately_ real. >>> Mark: >>> Is there something behind the facade? >> >> Marsha: >> What facade? > > Mark: > When you say unreal it seems to imply a facade. Is there then no facade? Marsha: You brought in the word 'unreal'. Do you mean Ultimately unreal? Do you know what you mean??? You've ignored my questions. I've had enough. This is too boring. Byeeee. 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
