Marsha, I appologize for being interested in what you said. I will not bother you any more. Regards, Mark
On 6/28/12, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Mark, > > Having dealt with many months of your jibber-jabber and circular questions, > your post brings this Schopenhauer quote to mind: > > “We will gradually become indifferent to what goes on in the minds of other > people when we acquire a knowledge of the superficial nature of their > thoughts, the narrowness of their views and of the number of their errors. > Whoever attaches a lot of value to the opinions of others pays them too much > honor.” > (Authur Schopenauer) > > I explained my use of 'hypothetical' in the first few posts in the 'expanded > rationality' thread. For more, as you once replied to me, I think you'd be > better off if you figure it out for yourself. Or not. > > > 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 > 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
