No you answered it. Thank you. If I may ask one more question at the risk of sounding intrusive - what is your definition of static patterns?
On 09/04/2013, at 7:17 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 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
