David, Not meaning to be a smartass, but there is a big difference between a universal statement and a existential statement, and that would be a first step towards understanding. Marsha
On Apr 9, 2013, at 2:29 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi David, > > Hmmm. Did you mean 'What do you mean by saying that its not a problem if we > cannot ALWAYS understand each other?' > > > Marsha > > > > On Apr 9, 2013, at 12:28 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> >> "It's analogy all the way down and all the way out, and not a problem if we >> cannot always understand each other." >> >> What do you mean by saying that its not a problem if we cannot understand >> each other? >> >> On 09/04/2013, at 7:08 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Joe, >>> >>> It's analogy all the way down and all the way out, and not a problem if we >>> cannot always understand each other. I hope you _understand_ that I use >>> the term 'indeterminate' because "Quality is indivisible, undefinable and >>> unknowable" and my explanation had no relationship to the philosophical >>> determinacy/indeterminacy problem, in spite of the noisy straw dog. >>> >>> Where to put sensations is interesting and sometimes a fun place to play, >>> though I don't believe it to be dependent on what is workable and useful in >>> explanation. Schopenhauer had some good thoughts on the subject. I >>> remember presenting some A.S. posts on perceiving apples. >>> >>> And I certainly find it hard to believe you mind being obscure. What to do >>> with consciousness is also interesting and deserving a good story. I don't >>> believe the intellectual (static) MoQ is suppose to represent the Absolute >>> Truth: >>> >>> "Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act since >>> it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher mystic >>> one. The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries to >>> control and devour philosophy is wrong with metaphysics when it tries to >>> devour the world intellectually. It attempts to capture the Dynamic within >>> a static pattern. But it never does. You never get it right. So why try? >>> >>> "It's like trying to construct a perfect unassailable chess game. No matter >>> how smart you are you're never going to play a game that is 'right' for all >>> people at all times, everywhere. Answers to ten questions led to a hundred >>> more and answers to those led to a thousand more. Not only would he never >>> get it right; the longer he worked on it the wronger it would probably get." >>> >>> (RMP, 'LILA', Chapter 32) >>> >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi MarshaV and All, >>> >>> I sense no urgency in trying to come to grips with metaphysics. MOQ tweaks >>> the logic of SOM! I am not convinced that I have a proper conception of >>> logic. An open forum seems to be the most rewarding test for logic. I am >>> sorry I am so obscure. Good luck to you! >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> >>> On 4/7/13 4:21 PM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Joe, >>>> >>>> You're on your own. I am not sure what you are talking about. >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 7, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Marsha V and All, >>>>> >>>>> SOM's theory of how we know things was through abstraction of the essence >>>>> from reality by the mind, giving it intentional existence in the mind >>>>> using >>>>> a definable word form from a template of previous experience. >>>>> >>>>> MOQ, Pirsig suggests knowledge is the direct experience of reality DQ/SQ. >>>>> Dreams can follow that experiential reality, creating analogues mocking >>>>> reality? >>>>> >>>>> How can I know indefinable DQ? For me consciousness seems to be the only >>>>> reality that identifies a capability of an indefinable direct experience >>>>> of >>>>> DQ. Dreams are interesting and creative mocking consciousness. They seem >>>>> so real. Nightmares! >>>>> >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4/6/13 9:50 PM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> What do you mean by 'direct perception'? To the question "What is >>>>>> that?", >>>>>> the mind may adjust the visual data, but not apply language? Or do you >>>>>> have >>>>>> a >>>>>> different explanation? >>> >>> >>> 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
