Hi Adrie, Statically or conventionally "real." I can buy that! But if I were only here to know about static or conventionally "real" things, I should be satisfied reading the dictionary and encyclopedia. It would all be there as deep as the ink on the page.
Marsha On Apr 6, 2013, at 5:51 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]> wrote: > It also translates nice as reality is alway partly illusive and all > illusions are partly real > hello Marsha > Adrie > > > 2013/4/6 MarshaV <[email protected]> > >> >> Hey Joe, >> >> Hmmmm. Directly perceiving Dynamic Quality, seems to me, makes all >> "things" and even patterns false: illusions and phantoms (ghosts). That >> does not translate into meaningless. Patterns exist as value. >> >> >> Marsha, >> with echo in head "Marsha, you think too much!" >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 6, 2013, at 5:21 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Joe, >>> >>> >>> Yes, unknowable in the sense that there is a known and knower, so not >> "conceptually knowable." How about known through direct perception? I have >> stated that DQ can be directly experienced and known like one knows the tea >> is hot when one is drinking it. Can this be true? Problem is that I can >> directly perceive, in such a manner, that there is a coiled snake ahead of >> me in the road, only to find out later that such certainty was unfounded >> and what I experienced was merely a coiled rope. On discovering that what >> I was seeing was, indeed, a coiled rope, what I do know with certainty was >> that it was NOT a coiled snake. This is why I accept the idea that the >> best way to discover Truth is by discovering what is false. >>> >>> But having written the above, I will leave the issue open for further >> investigation. Perhaps Steve Hagen's book will offer some insight on the >> subject of perceptions. >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 3, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote: >>> >>>> Hi MarshaV and All, >>>> >>>> I have no sense of what you mean by "unknowable" DQ? Unknowable is not >> the >>>> same as indefinable in DQ (indefinable) SQ (definable) metaphysics. >>>> "Unknowable" means a barrier to the contact of the faculty for >> knowledge. >>>> Indefinable accepts a direct contact in consciousness without language. >>>> "What was that?" DQ! >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4/2/13 5:31 PM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> DQ is "indivisible, undefinable & unknowable"; the term 'indivisible' >> pointing >>>>> to monism, non-dualistic: indeterminate. >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> >>> >>> 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 > > > > -- > parser > 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
