@Marsha Marsha said. 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.
----------------------------- In other words, nobody likes to get fucked in a rational manner (pun intended). Pirsig's ghosts-( the unseen,still to discover,the momentary unknowable, until something better comes along....) Your use of the word unknowable as in "common parlance", was not gamble. reality itself has to await its own future.... Einstein used the term "hidden variables",because in his opinion something was missing in the realitymodel. so you have a legitimate point, Marsha,!-but!-not to stir op the controverse i''l have to say Dmb was correct that you took an indeterminate knife to undercut a indeterminate philosophikal approach as were the debate determinism/indeterminism already was clear, not only in Pirsig's statements, but also in the mainstream today's commons understandings of the issue. Your mistake was to make the undercut using a double negation.not so uncommon. Off course Pirsig opposes to the ghosts, they are demons preventing philosophikal science and progress. Pirsig took His position. evidence is slowly building up that Eistein was correct, some of the "hidden variables"are showing themselves today, the unknown is now lesser unknown. Higgs-a candidate for gravity neutrinos, their role is not understood now,but surely they matter. I have to say Marsha, you made a lot of progress. Adrie. 2013/4/9 David Harding <[email protected]> > 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 > -- 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
