Hello David, On Aug 27, 2012, at 10:37 PM, David Harding wrote:
> 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. Out from nowhere, David presents Lila's words from Chapter 14. Sorry, these are words that RMP wrote in LILA. Taking them out of context and claiming that they somehow (out of context) represent anything I've said demonstrate your desperation. > They're only 'hypothetical' after all. It is true that patterns may include a collection of words, and I take patterns as hypothetical (supposed but not neccesarily real or true). I think considering patterns to be hypothetical acknowledges the incompleteness of patterns and makes room for new possibilities. > 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. Get a life! Are you arguing that I am a mystic because of my very attempt to deny it. Who could take you seriously. As RMP commented in the Copleston Annotation, "This is casuistry. If you deny knowing anything about rutabagas in Russia, does the fact that you are denying it prove that you really do know something about rutabagas in Russia?" > 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? >> 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. I did not have sex with that Russian rutabaga! > 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." And what RMP DOESN'T state is that there are two types of mystics (good and bad). > "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." I agree with RMP's comment. > 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. After much thought, I wrote a very careful explanation of why I prefer to think of patterns as hypothetical: I prefer to think of objects of knowledge 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 necessarily real or true.) 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 existing independent of consciousness. > 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'. "In the MOQ, nothing exists prior to the observation. The observation creates the intellectual patterns called “observed” and “observer.” Think about it. How could a subject and object exist in a world where there are no observations?" (LILA's Child) Value comes first; observation would represent what is experienced in the interaction between value and consciousness. And I consider observation to be of two types: seeing and 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. Yes, the intellectual pattern labeled 'truth' is one of many intellectual patterns. >> I see this as a function of a relationship with consciousness. > > The MOQ doesn't start with consciousness. It starts with experience. The MoQ's fundamental principle is that the World is nothing but Value. >>> 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. Others? I am not concerned with what others claim. Others claim I am 'talking from both sides of my ass'. Those others hold no intellectual competency as far as I am concerned. And while they talk about experience coming first, I doubt that they understand their own experience; they probably know no more than the ink on the page. Thank you. Marsha ___ 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
