Mark, Hypothetical: supposed but not neccesarily real or true
Monism: holding that there is only one basic substance or principle that is the ground of reality Marsha On Jun 28, 2012, at 11:00 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 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
