On May 4, 2013, at 9:45 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] said to dmb: > It isn't a problem to separate conceptions from perceptions, and it does not > indicate that anything other than Value is moving the senses. > > dmb says: > I can't any sense of that sentence, which seems to be two sentences, one of > which is a question and the other a declarative statement about "it", wherein > you never say what "it" is. Separating conceptions and perceptions is not a problem; separating conceptions and perceptions does not indicate that anything other than Value is moving the senses. > [email protected] said to dmb: > Our structured (relative) reality involves concepts and percepts. > > dmb says: > As I understand the terms involved, that sentence is redundant nonsense. As I > understand it, concepts and percepts constitute the whole of our structured > reality, are the structures in the phrase "structured reality", so that your > sentence would translate into, "our structured reality involves our > structured reality". This is redundant nonsense or, at best, a useless and > meaningless thing to say. Redundant nonsense? > [email protected] said to dmb: > And the terms 'ghosts' and 'imagination' do not undermine or attempt to > undermine intellectual static patterns of value,.. > > > dmb say: > This sentence has the same problem as the last one. Ghosts ARE static > pattens, as I understand the terms, so that your sentence would translate as, > "the term 'ghosts' does not undermine the ghosts" or "static patterns do not > attempt to undermine static pattens". I can only imagine what you THINK the > difference is between ghosts and intellectual static patterns but I think the > law of gravity is an example of both because they mean exactly the same > thing. What are you talking about? One can only guess because you misuse all > of the terms. You have your own private definition, which makes communication > impossible, of course. > > "The world has no existence whatsoever outside the human imagination. It's > all a ghost, and in antiquity was so recognized as a ghost, the whole blessed > world we live in. It's run by ghosts. We see what we see because these ghosts > show it to us, ghosts of Moses and Christ and the Buddha, and Plato, and > Descartes, and Rousseau and Jefferson and Lincoln, on and on and on. Isaac > Newton is a very good ghost. One of the best. Your common sense is nothing > more than the voices of thousands and thousands of these ghosts from the > past. Ghosts and more ghosts. Ghosts trying to find their place among the > living.'' (RMP, 'ZAMM', Chapter 3) > > Ghosts are just another analogy. As I understand it, Pirsig would say exactly > the same thing about the many marvelous invented analogies and about the > static pattens of value. The four levels are ghosts, every last bit of it. I > honestly don't know why you cannot see past these images, why you take them > so literally, why you cannot see that there is just one idea behind these > various descriptions. > > You don't belong here, Marsha. You have repeatedly proven that you don't get > it. Please, please, go spend your time elsewhere. Please? Won't you go away > for your own sake, if not ours? Go away? This is a list to discuss the Metaphysics of Quality. I have no desire to participate in your male hierarchical struggle to be alpha dog. Woof! Woof! Marsha 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
