Hi Marsha, I thought so. But 'What do you mean by saying that its not a problem if we cannot ALWAYS understand each other?'
On 09/04/2013, at 5:36 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 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
