Hi Mark,
That which is without value does not exist, so yes your opinion has value. I find everyone's opinion different and interesting. The Ultimate Real, DQ, being indivisible, undefinable and unknowable, makes there no-thing to be found, though such may be realized/experienced. I cannot say that there is a _we_ that _creates_ something. What I might suggest is that there seems to be a creative interdependence between value and consciousness. Marsha On Dec 6, 2012, at 6:31 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha, > All I have is my opinion, and it goes as such: > The idea of the Ultimately Real comes from an approach that there is > something to find. This is a scientific approach which is commensurate with > our age of objectivity. > > The approach of Quality, as I see it, is that such ultimate seeking is the > wrong approach. Within Quality, one does not search for a basis to reality, > rather one creates a manner of interpretation which is more meaningful. Such > meaning does not come from the creation of an ultimate cause, but from the > creation of the explanation of the creative present. In this we all > participate and therefore objective distinctions are secondary, or the result > of, personal creation. > > Perhaps my opinion is of some value to you. > > Cheers, > > > Mark > > On Dec 5, 2012, at 9:31 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> The last thing I might want to do is beg a question, especially from you, >> for I often have difficulty answering my own questions and your questions >> seem like tongue twisters. What is Ultimately Real versus what is real as >> patterned value, and are they really separate and really real? Good >> questions, and I could spend hours, days, weeks and dreams trying to find a >> good answer, and wondering what is good, ... >> >> Marsha >> >> >> On Dec 5, 2012, at 6:00 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Marsha, >>> That is a good understanding as far as I am concerned. It does beg the >>> question as to what we mean by real. It seems to me that we participate in >>> the creation of the real. The real can therefore not be held objectively >>> at arms length. Through the creation of knowledge we can create ontology. >>> >>> The only reason we cannot create ontology and keep it indeterminate, is >>> that is what we want. What you suggest is what others suggest, and that is >>> to not discuss the nature of Quality. This goes against what MoQ is for, >>> in my opinion. I am not sure why everybody is afraid to discuss Quality >>> (create ontology). Perhaps they lack imagination. Quality has been >>> discussed from an ontological point of view throughout the ages. >>> >>> My guess is that such people misunderstand SQ, and are afraid of it. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> On Dec 4, 2012, at 9:11 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Mark, >>>> >>>> It is my understanding that ontology is concerned with what is >>>> fundamentally real, while epistemology is concerned with understanding >>>> what it is to have knowledge. For me the MoQ is ontologically >>>> indeterminate (DQ), and epistemologically relativistic (sq), relative to >>>> past and present patterns of value and the dynamics of moment. >>>> >>>> >>>> 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
