David, Seems to me understanding and meaningfulness are, to varying degrees, relative and dependent on context, intent, and habits of thought, etc. For example, a simple thing like introversion/extroversion may have a significant effect on whether it's a problem, or not, and to what degree. Cultural differences is another example. I certainly do not expect that my point-of-view will be understood and beloved by one and ALL; nor do I care. It hopefully may resonate with some, but because my point-of-view is ever-changing and always incomplete I can be tolerant. And with others we may never come to a thorough understanding. And of course there is that ever-present and underlying fact that these understandings are not Ultimately True. I really do not like the idea of turning maya into dogma.
Have I answered your question? Or were you looking for an answer coming from a different context? Marsha On Apr 9, 2013, at 4:26 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 qualified statement and a existential qualified 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 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
