Marsha, All I am doing is trying to clarify what you are asking. I am not asking you to affirm anything, just to explain.
So Reality is what isn't? Reality is unReality? What noun do you give what is? Please define your terms. You are using the word Reality in rather an uncommon way. If I say that what is Real is unReal, I have simply swapped words. Is this what you are doing with your rhetoric? If so, what point are you trying to make? When you bring in a "fundamental nature", does this mean that SQ is made out of DQ? Or are you using the phrase "fundamental nature" to mean something else. I could say that the fundamental nature of water is hydrogen and oxygen. By this I mean that water is made out of oxygen and hydrogen within the scientific view. So is SQ made up of DQ? If so, how does this work? Certainly if something is conditional it is not indeterminate, it is conditional. I am not sure of your grammar here. If what you are saying that something being conditional depends on the indeterminate, well yes, that is why it is called conditional. This is simply the definition of conditional. If the fundamental nature of SQ depends on DQ, I would also say that the fundamental nature of DQ is SQ. In that sense they are two parts of the presentation of Quality which Pirsig has used to describe Quality in metaphysical terms. It is rhetoric that Pirsig uses. DQ and SQ do not really exist, they are just a manner of teaching Quality. If we get stuck in making objects out of the words he uses, then we are simply analyzing the glasses he provides without putting them on. Pirsig has tried to make things easy on us by splitting Quality up. This is analogized by a pair of glasses being made up of two lenses. It provides an SQ in 3D. You are trying to put it back together, using the split that Pirsig creates. So your SQ becomes a monocle. What is the purpose therein? Are you saying that Quality is non-dual? Well duh. Maybe you are just getting to that realization and posting on your recent discovery. If that is the case, then I am glad you are getting somewhere with MoQ. After you are there, then you can begin to present such a thing using metaphysics which requires description as Pirsig has done. This is the art of metaphysics. It is a description. By placing DQ and SQ as singular, you are not quite yet to the art of metaphysics which is what this forum is about. That you do not accept a disjunctive world is not born out by what you post. When you agree with Bohr, you are making it disjunctive since you are taking sides. Remember, sides imply "disjunctivity". You you would never say such a thing if you did not believe in the disjunctive. Your words are only as good as your rhetorical presentation. The fact that you contradict your words through your rhetoric implies a schism between what you say and what you believe. If what you write is hypothetical to you, then it would seem you are lost in the art of rhetoric. Rhetoric is meant to be convincing. If you start out by saying "what I say is simply hypothetical and I pretend no idea of its basis", what form of convincing are you going to bring about? You destroy any credibility before you even start. It just seems that you are lost in your own thoughts questioning everything you say. I am not sure why you would want to contribute to a philosophy forum in this way except that what you present is a cry for help. You are drowning in your own questions, and need a hand. This is what we try to give you. We try to explain things to you so that you are not simply swimming in questions. This is what Pirsig tries to do for you with MoQ. If Pirsig had started his book by saying "Everything I write is questionable for me, and must be treated as such", then he would get off to a bad start. Pirsig understands rhetoric though, and does not do that. Let me know when you get beyond thinking that your very thoughts are not well founded. Come and join us in the act of creation. Don't be timid. We create what we create, if we are going to keep second guessing ourselves all the time we will never get started. Be brave, take a stand. Get beyond that foggy reality of yours. Believe in something. It will do you good. Cheers, Mark On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:50 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark, > > Certainly not with an unlatched, unwarranted, intuitional conceit acting > as authority will you get me to unnecessarily affirm any conjecture with > your rhetorical dribble. Reality is what isn't. The fundamental nature of > static quality is Dynamic Quality, or stated differently, the fundamental > nature of the conditional is the indeterminate. I do not accept a > disjunctive world. So I agree with Niels Bohr that "every sentence I utter > must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.", or as > hypothetical. > > > Marsha > > > On Oct 20, 2012, at 2:56 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Marsha, > > I am not sure how to answer your question. Could you phrase it in a > > different way? I am not quite sure what you are asking. What is it that > > you are trying to find out? You had said that everything you post is a > > question. I am confused. > > > > Of course the reality we put into words is part of reality. Is that what > > you are asking? I suppose I am confused by your use of the term reality. > > Reality is what is. A presentation of reality is reality as it happens. > > > > Like I said, I have a problem understanding what you are seeking with > your > > questions. > > > > Cheers, > > Mark > > > > On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:07 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> Mark, > >> > >> “The reality we can put into words is never reality itself.” > >> (Werner Heisenberg) > >> > >> I agree with Werner Heisenberg that the reality we can put into words is > >> never reality itself, and I did state to Jan-Anders, long ago, that the > >> problem I see both question #1 & #2 addressing concerns the nature of > >> reality. As I said, the questions were already answered. > >> > >> > >> Marsha > >> > >> > >> On Oct 19, 2012, at 6:10 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> I guess it is said that there is no such thing as a stupid question? > >> Sometimes I wonder? > >>> > >>> Mark? > >>> > >>> On Oct 18, 2012, at 12:19 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Mark, > >>>> > >>>> So simple... > >>>> > >>>> "Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but > >> as a question." > >>>> (Niels Bohr) > >>>> > >>>> Marsha: > >>>> I agree with Niels Bohr that every sentence I utter must be understood > >> not as an affirmation, but as a question, or as hypothetical. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 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 > > 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
