Hi David, Perhaps a question to you is appropriate. Why do you say that a truth is an intellectual pattern?
Is this simply how you define truth, or are you trying to say something substantive? I would like your considered opinion on this since I believe you are mistaken. This is especially true if you consider your statement to be truth. How about answering a question for a change? I feel you have no idea what you are talking about. All this badgering of Marsha to prove a point is pointless. Mark On Aug 16, 2012, at 6:02 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha, > >>> So you do not find the truths of philosophy 'valid'? Why is it so >>> important, heaven forbid, that the word truth is qualified by the words >>> conventional or provisional? >> >> Well, it certainly is not in the words 'conventional' and 'provisional'; >> it's the realization that our experiencing is co-dependent (relative), >> impermanent and ever-changing - fleeting. > > Okayy.. So truth changes how as a result of this? > >>>> The Ultimate Truth, which might be what interests me, is best approached >>>> by discovering what is false; not this, not that; or so this is how I have >>>> come to understand and experience it. >>> >>> So other truths apart from the 'Ultimate Truth' does not interest you? >> >> The word 'truth' does not interest me. I like the idea of 'patterns' so >> much more. > > Why do you dislike the word 'truth' so much? Are there truths which > you do not like? Is there something in your past which you do not want > to face and so are avoiding it philosophically by claiming that > 'truth' does not exist? A truth is an intellectual pattern. Some are > good some are bad but truth is very important. It is a matter of life > and death. Some truths save lives. Like the truth that you should put > your seatbelt on when you go driving... > >>> So if I were to take your viewpoint. And take that objects of knowledge >>> and static patterns are as you say - 'hypothetical'. Would it help the >>> victims families of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima to tell them not to >>> worry, the bombs were only 'hypothetical'? >> >> No, it wouldn't help the victims of the bombs dropped by the U.S.A. onto >> Japan. > > Claiming that it is true that these things did happen, on the other > hand, does help the victims. It means that they can begin to accept > that it is true that these things have happened and move on.. > Pretending that they were hypothetical is delusional and doesn't help. > >>> That makes me sick to the stomach. What shrewd, uncaring, new age mumbo >>> jumbo. >> >> Your being "sick" and name calling doesn't help much either; it may be just >> adding more pollution. I find holding patterns as hypothetical may be a >> good way to honor all life as continuous. > > But life isn't continuous Marsha. That's my point. One day you and I > and everyone else who is alive is going to die. That's true and not > 'hypothetical'. > >>> There are facts of life Marsha. And no, they're not hypothetical. One of >>> those facts of life, is that you and I and everyone on this planet is going >>> to die. This isn't some joke. It's very sad and something very real when >>> someone's time comes before it should. This is why there is more to life >>> than just your 'Ultimate Truth'. There are important things and truths in >>> life which people are concerned with which aren't the 'Ultimate Truth'. A >>> way of determining those truths is by dialectically questioning someone, >>> and forcing them to explain - on demand. >> >> There is value/experience; understanding that is more useful than some >> cliche. And I do not dictate what everyone else should be doing or >> thinking. There are times in our lives when family and community may be >> more important, but I think compassion is a gift of the Ultimate Truth, even >> we only experience it as fleeting. > > Everything is a 'gift' of the ultimate truth. Saying that is like > saying the sun will rise tomorrow. So what? We are alive and there are > facts of life which are true. We cannot wish those facts of life away > just by pretending they are 'incomplete' or 'co-dependent'. > >>>>> Yeah good, valuable, moral, right - they're all the same thing to me… >>>> >>>> Maybe a serial killer would agree with you. >>> >>> I hardly see how what I wrote would be something a serial killer would say. >>> If you could explain yourself with some reasoning so that I can >>> intellectually understand where you are coming from then maybe I can >>> respond in more detail so that we can get to the truth of the matter. >> >> I am not sure there is a rational way to present an explanation. > > Being that I value intellect and metaphysics I think you can explain > everything except Dynamic Quality. But even DQ we have given it a > name and called it as such.. > >> Think back to your presenting a family tragedy and the bombing of Hiroshima. >> On what level can they be "good, valuable, moral, right"? > > The bombing of Japan had a certain rightness to it to those who > ordered the bombings. While we disagree about our descriptions of > what is right, it is our descriptions which differ and not the > rightness itself. > >> Such a paradox was why Phædrus left the University in India, was it not? > > No it wasn't and this points to what appears to be your misreading on > ZMM. The whole point of why Phædrus left India was that they were > claiming what you are claiming now. That the bombs were 'illusory'.. > > "But one day in the classroom, the professor of philosophy was blindly > expounding on the illusory nature of the world for what seemed like > the fiftieth time and Phaedrus raised his hand and asked coldly if it > was believed that the atomic bombs that had been dropped on Hiroshima > and Nagasaki were illusory. The professor smiled ans said yes. That > was the end of the exchange. > > Within the traditions of Indian philosophy that answer may have been9 > correct, but for Phaedrus and for anyone else who reads newspapers > regularly and is concerned with such things as mass destruction of > human beings that answer was hopelessly inadequate. He left the > classroom, left India and gave up." > > >> It is a most difficult challenge to understanding, and I believe the path to >> opening one's heart. I did try to bring up the Buddhist conception of the >> Two-Truths, but those too are just words. And I only make others angry if I >> say the fundamental nature of static quality is Dynamic Quality. It sounds >> insane to say it is suffering and, at the same time, it is good, valuable, >> moral and right. But that's the way it is, or seems to be to me. > > Yes static quality is suffering and good, valuable, moral and right. > Static quality does come from Dynamic Quality. But it is not Dynamic > Quality. They are two very different Qualities. One is interested in > particulars, while the other is no thing at all. > > -David > 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
