dmb,
On Nov 21, 2012, at 11:59 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> dmb said:
> That's the meaning of "truth" in the MOQ. "Truth is a static intellectual
> pattern within a larger entity called Quality."
>
> Marsha replied:
> Sure, 'truth' is _a_ (one among many) intellectual static pattern of value.
> A few definitions can be found in the dictionary. And?
>
> dmb says:
> What? You think truth is singular? You think there is only one truth? That's
> absurd. Nobody has ever believed such a silly thing and for pragmatists like
> Pirsig there are many truths, all of which are provisional and invented - as
> opposed to eternal and discovered.
Marsha:
Like 'justice', which is also provisional, can be applied to many different
events. As far as I'm concerned within the MoQ there is Value(Dynamic/static).
There is not some third Value called truth. And 'truth' is _a_ (one of many)
intellectual static pattern of value. But please, you explain how you
understand 'truth' applies to the MoQ. Is it going to be one of the entries
from a standard dictionary definition, or something new that doesn't match
anything in a dictionary?
> dmb said previously:
> There is nothing logically contradictory about having an experience while
> thinking at the same time.
Marsha replied:
You can be eating an orange and thinking about something else, perhaps Denver.
It is a common event.
> The idea here is to get them both working TOGETHER. And doing that means
> putting them in their proper relation, knowing which is which.
>
>
> Marsha replied:
> They aren't really things to be working together.
>
>
> dmb says:
> What!? Okay now you're just contradicting yourself. Earlier you said, "Hasn't
> RMP stated that the ideal is to experience the Dynamic point-of-view
> simultaneously with the static point-of-view?"
No, what you wrote was confusing. Regardless what language is used, Dynamic
and static value are not things to be manipulated or put together. How would
you propose that they are?
> You want to see the textual evidence on this?
Marsha:
Thanks for the mess of bare, unreferenced quotes; no one can accuse you of
being a scholar. If you cannot explain how you mean the quotes to support
whatever you're trying to say, don't expect me to make the effort. By the
way, should that jumble of quotes you presented be taken literally or should
they taken as analogy???
Marsha from previous post:
Why, your rational mind might ask, if the idea is to hold the Dynamic
point-of-view simultaneously with the static point-of-view, would one need to
kill all intellectual patterns? My explanation is to first know deeply and
first-hand the _experience_ of being without them: awareness, direct
perceptions, pre-conceptual experience. I mean on some level doesn't
_simultaneous_ fly in the face of Aristotle's Law of Non-contradiction and all
its deep-seeded sub- & un-conscious associated assumptions? It's not
either/or, it's _simultaneous_.
Marsha:
A direct experience that becomes a remaking of one's relationship to knowing?
Maybe you aren't interested in direct experience, but only what David Scott
and Charlene Siegfried explain (you might lookup the word 'explain') concerning
what William James meant. Here is a reminder concerning direct experience:
___
RMP:
... Remember that the central reality of the MOQ is not an object or a subject
or anything else. It is understood by direct experience only and not by
reasoning of any kind...
DG:
Direct experience does not mean direct experience per se but rather experience
directly perceived. It may just be a matter of semantics but I have always
argued there is no such thing as direct experience. Now I sense I have been
looking at the question backwards, so to speak.
RMP:
Yes
(LILA's CHILD)
___
Now concerning this quote that RMP wrote:
>>>>> While sustaining biological and social patterns
>>>>> Kill all intellectual patterns.
>>>>> Kill them completely
>>>>> And then follow Dynamic Quality
>>>>> And morality will be served.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "When Phaedrus first went to India he'd wondered why, if this passage of
>>>>> enlightenment into pure Dynamic Quality was such a universal reality, did
>>>>> it only occur in certain parts of the world and not others? At the time
>>>>> he'd thought this was proof that the whole thing was just Oriental
>>>>> religious baloney, the equivalent of a magic land called 'heaven' that
>>>>> Westerners go to if they are good and get a ticket from the priests. Now
>>>>> he saw that enlightenment is distributed in all parts of the world just
>>>>> as the color yellow is distributed in all parts of the world, but some
>>>>> cultures accept it and others screen out recognition of it."
>>>>>
>>>>> (LILA, Chapter 32)
> Marsha said:
> I agree with this RMP quote [killing intellect] and I explained why. And my
> explanation didn't look anything like the literalist twist that you spin it
> through.
You have accused me of taking the poem literally, but I haven't suggested you
get out your six-gun and shoot intellectual static patterns of value until
dead. Read above where I explained what I meant.
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
