Hi Marsha, You are giving me a choice. Well that is noble of you. I do not want you to go "down" all the way to Nothingness, for that is easy. All logic is based on such nothingness. That is simply a deconstructionist way to go about this, and will always end up in some kind of faith like "explaining it to its base does not do it justice, therefore I will not even try; I just believe it to be so".
How about you start with "not this, not that" and then build up to your concept of monistic. This is the creative process that humans are endowed with. So, how do you get from "not this, not that" to your monism? I am sure you can do this downwards (as you assert in your post to me), and so, you just need to start when you end up with deconstructionism and reverse your logic to go the other way. Simple, this is called creative thinking. That is MoQ. It starts with Quality, and then builds a metaphysics around it. It does not start with monism and arrive at Quality. Pirsig was aware of Quality through some cloudy memory of having been there, and he did his best to explain it with common terms. So, there you have it. Your choice whether you want to "explain" or not. You can always just avoid having to put your brain through that exercise and remain at "not this, not that". We all love vegetables. So, are you a woman or a vegetable? Do you have an intellect, or is it all confusing in there? Is it all simply "not this, not that", or can you make something out of it? Be creative, not destructive, it is much more interesting. In terms of your meaning of hypothetical, you do not have to even get metaphysical about it. I just want to know what you mean by that word. However, you have to know what you mean in order to explain it to me. If you do not know, then no answer is required. There are lots and lots of things that I do not know. Usually I do not post on ideas that I haven't thought about, though. This forum is about learning from each other, not about winning an argument. Please, teach me. Cheers, Mark On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:43 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark, > > How far down would you like the explanation to go? Should I take it all > the way down to 'not this, not that' or stop at some arbitrary level of > your choosing? > > > > Marsha > > > > > > On Jun 28, 2012, at 6:10 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I am not quite sure what you mean by monistic. Could you explain this > > a bit more? > > > > What does it mean to you if something is hypothetical? Is it used as > > "a possilble truth"? Or, are you using the word differently? What > > does it mean that knowledge is hypothetical? I think I am missing > > your point (hypothetically that is). > > > > M > > On 6/28/12, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Greetings, > >> > >> First, I do believe I was writing about the MOQ being monistic, where > >> reality, the world, is said to be nothing but value. Second, I changed > the > >> word I used for expanded rationality for hypothesis to hypothetical. > >> > >> > >> Marsha. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jun 28, 2012, at 1:37 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Ron, > >>> > >>> First of all, Marsha considers any knowledge to be a hypothesis. A > >>> hypothesis is a form of knowledge. This would make knowledge of > >>> something a form of knowledge. Anyone can see that this is simply a > >>> play on words, and will not lead anywhere. > >>> > >>> For Quality to be a monism, it must be conjectured to exist as an > >>> entity, as described by Marsha as "the source of all that exists". > >>> That is, it must exist separate from "all that exists". I do not > >>> believe that this is a useful interpretation of Quality, for then we > >>> revert to religious aspects of such metaphysics. > >>> > >>> Others, including myself, have suggested that Quality is "The Event". > >>> That is, it does not underlie any static phenomena, but is the process > >>> of such phenomena. This Event is occurring in the present tense. An > >>> event can have a tendency, and in MoQ this tendency is "betterness". > >>> In Taoism this "event" can be translated as "The Way", which reading > >>> of the Tao Te Ching will reveal (if read in that way). The tendency > >>> of the Way is to defy resistance. One issue in the modern world is > >>> that we tend to embrace resistance. > >>> > >>> By describing Quality as the cause of results, we are not left with > >>> anything static to hold on to. One can personalize such Quality by > >>> describing it as an Intention, or a Relationship. A relationship > >>> exists between two things (for example), but is NOT either of those > >>> things. In fact, one can simply turn the logic and say that the > >>> relationship CREATES the two things. I have brought this in to the > >>> discussion a number of times; one time poetically by describing > >>> Quality as "the golden threads" that lie between, create, and holds > >>> together. In another analogy which I have used, Quality is like the > >>> "event" of lava pouring through a fissure. Always coming anew and > >>> building. Not to be taken literally of course. > >>> > >>> When I explain Quality to others around here, I have found that by > >>> using the "event" metaphor, those listening can intuitively grasp what > >>> I am presenting, and stay away from the concept of monism. I am not > >>> sure if this is useful to you. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Mark > >>> > >>> > >>> On 6/28/12, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Marsha had stated to Joe: > >>>> > >>>> The context for my comment was quite an indictment of the intellect's > >>>> shortcomings by Schopenhauer. I think, though, that the value can be > >>>> improved if the dualism implied by knowledge-of-some-thing is > understood > >>>> and > >>>> remains as hypothetical. The MoQ is afterall a monism (with Quality > the > >>>> source of all that exists.) At its highest, static (patterned) > quality > >>>> may > >>>> represent the best value available at the moment, but it does have its > >>>> fallibilities At least, imho. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Ron asks: > >>>> Some questions directed at Ant- > >>>> > >>>> Is Quality a Monism? firstly, it should be clear we are speaking of > >>>> static > >>>> quality and when we are speaking > >>>> of monads we are speaking about unity, oneness, whole. It tends to > lend > >>>> to > >>>> the idea of completeness. > >>>> > >>>> The encapsulization as it were. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> .. > >>>> 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 > >> > > 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
