Hi Marsha, Marsha quoted Lila in admiration previously:
"'I'm not anybody. All these questions you're asking are just a waste of time. I know you're trying to find out what kind of a person I am but you're never going to find out anything because there's nothing to know.' Her voice was getting slushy. She could tell it was getting slushy. 'I mean, I used to play I was this kind of person and that kind of person but I got so tired of playing all those games. It's such work and it doesn't do any good. There's just all these pictures of who I am and they don't hold together. They're all different people I'm supposed to be but none of them are me. I'm not anybody. I'm not here. Like you now. I can see you've got a lot of bad impressions about me in your mind. And you think that what's in your mind is here talking to you but nobody's here. You know what I mean? Nobody's home. That's Lila. Nobody's home.’." This is what you will continually say. You'll deny any words can ever describe who or what you are.. Words cannot describe things you say. They're only 'hypothetical' after all. I call you a Mystic. Mystics - by definition, deny that they're mystics because they don't like definitions. So your denial that your a mystic is no confirmation that you aren't one. In fact, it makes my point. Here's all your quotes below where you dodge my questions like a mystic because I can't pin you or the 'truth' down. That's what mystics say.. No one can.. > Yes, Value comes first! > > I have nothing to say about what it seems like to you. > > Thus speaks David Harding! Hahaha... I don't take you as someone to > lecture on mysticism, or advise me on how I should interpret experience. I > don't even see that most of this paragraph, on mysticism in particular, is > pertinent to any statement I've made, nor the discussion in general. > > But as far as analogy goes, let me offer: > > "Fantastic, Phædrus thinks, that he should have remembered that. It just > demolishes the whole dialectical position. That may just be the whole show > right there. Of course it's an analogy. Everything is an analogy. But the > dialectician don't know that." > (ZAMM, Ch. 30) > > Wake up! > > And please stop thinking that your imaginings on how to judge a mystic matter > to me. > > I care that you have thoughts. > > At an accident you might find as many different and opposing eyewitness > reports as there are witnesses? Do all witnesses decide that there version > is the truth based on it being "an idea which represents experience > beautifully"? Perhaps Heinrich Himmler thought the truth of his ideas were > based on how well they represented his experience beautifully? > > I'll stick to considering static patterns of value as hypothetical. > > If RMP wanted to make truth primary, he would have written a MoT, but he > didn't. I very much like RMP's choice in describing static quality as > patterns - static patterns of value. > > Again, I did not state that 'truth' was wrong, bad or didn't exist. I stated > that I value more highly using the word 'pattern' rather then 'truth'; and I > prefer to think of patterns as 'hypothetical'. I do not insist, nor even > suggest, that you should adopt my position. > > So you want to play word games? No thanks. > > And I think hypothetical (supposed but not neccesarily real or true) is an > idea which represents experience beautifully. > I prefer to think of objects of knowledge (patterns) as hypothetical. Once > one accepts the MoQ's fundamental principal that the world is nothing but > Value, then 'expanded rationality' occurs when an individual transforms the > natural tendency to reify self and world into the natural tendency to hold > all static patterns of value to be hypothetical (supposed but not neccesarily > real or true.) By using 'hypothetical' I think there is less of a tendency > toward intellectual arrogance. Understanding static (patterned) value as > hypothetical acknowledges the incompleteness of what we know and makes room > for additional inquiry with new possibilities; it promotes an attitude of > fearless curiosity: gumption. It moves one away from thinking of entities as > existing inherently and independent of consciousness. But I think that mysticism of the sort where you deny being a mystic is the type of mysticism which is a major opponent to the MOQ. As Pirsig writes in Lila, the MOQ has two main opponents: ""It has two kinds of opponents. The first are the philosophers of science, most particularly the group known as logical positivists.. The second group of opponents are the mystics." "The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for being something less pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of life." By your existence now Marsha - you are claiming the best way to live life. You are setting an example for everyone else. You can deny this like a bad mystic but this is what you are doing. You claim that "I do not insist, nor even suggest, that you should adopt my position. " But this is just my point. Your existence and participation on this philosophical forum is making a claim about the best way to live. Your words are all values. These values reflect a philosophical position. This is a philosophical discussion board. If you do not want to discuss philosophy then please join a Zen group and talk mysticism there. So besides all of your dodging it appears you still want to talk some philosophy so I have responded to those parts below: > Such a closed-ended, either/or question. My answer is the type of knowing > that bifurcates is the type that knows something. My answer is the MOQ starts with experience not with subjectivity or 'knowing'. > Philosophy/philosophers have not come to any consensus about truth. And you > do not have the knowledge that can state what "everybody knows". Do you mean > everyone in the past, and everyone in the present and everyone in the future? > How could you know that? - I think you have some confusion about the > intellectual static pattern named 'truth'; it's a pattern. I should have said everyone (intellectual) knows what truth is. A truth is a high quality intellectual idea which is a pattern yes. One of many patterns. > I see this as a function of a relationship with consciousness. The MOQ doesn't start with consciousness. It starts with experience. >> A subject and an object always has to be identified. > Valued by consciousness? This is the mistake of SOM - to always find it necessary to identify a subject and an object. Your obsession with consciousness makes me wonder whether you are still thinking, as others have claimed, from the perspective of SOM. Thanks Marsha, -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
