J-A,
You seem confused, so I've changed the subject line to reflect the original and
more appropriate discussion.
Marsha
---
Jan-Anders,
The original topic has not been replaced; it was change, not clay or teapots or
'saving time'. Before (when soft and malleable) and after a firing (when firm
and stable), the clay is still in a constant state of changing. In other
words, both before and after the firing, the clay or teapot is ever-changing.
So once again I suggest that you might take a few minutes everyday to take an
introspective look:
"The purpose of mystic meditation is not to remove oneself from experience but
to bring one's self closer to it by eliminating stale, confusing, static,
intellectual attachments of the past."
(LILA, Chapter 9)
“Introspective observation is what we have to rely on first and foremost and
always. I regard the belief [in introspection] as the most fundamental of all
the postulates of Psychology”
(W. James, 1890)
Marsha
On May 8, 2013, at 4:58 AM, Jan Anders Andersson wrote:
> Dear Marsha
>
> You know from my book that to separate the good from the bad is to check if
> it saves time or not. If a pattern (of logic contradiction) saves time, it
> feeds and grow, otherwise it eats and diminish.
>
> How about an unburned piece of clay formed as a teapot, will it save more
> time than a burned teapot piece of pattern?
>
> JAn Anders
--------------
from original discussion:
On May 3, 2013, at 5:11 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>
> J-A,
>
> The original topic was change, not clay. I can think of many reasons to fire
> clay. But as I already mentioned, before (when soft and malleable) and after
> a firing (when firm), the clay is still in a constant state of changing. In
> other words, both before and after the firing, the clay is ever-changing.
> You might take a few minutes everyday to take an introspective look:
>
>
> "The purpose of mystic meditation is not to remove oneself from experience
> but to bring one's self closer to it by eliminating stale, confusing, static,
> intellectual attachments of the past."
> (LILA, Chapter 9)
>
>
> “Introspective observation is what we have to rely on first and foremost and
> always. I regard the belief [in introspection] as the most fundamental of all
> the postulates of Psychology”
> (W. James, 1890)
>
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 3, 2013, at 4:09 AM, Jan Anders Andersson wrote:
>
>> Good day Marsha
>>
>> The question is in there:
>>
>> Why should you burn the clay?
>>
>> What is the difference between before burning and after?
>>
>> The empty space inside has nothing to do with the question and this
>> emptiness is not changed during the burn. I would also place a warning to
>> talk about empty space inside something in a philosophic forum because it
>> can awake bad association paths by your opponents.
>>
>> It's all about betterness, Marsha. Why is it better with a firm teapot than
>> a soft and malleable?
>>
>> You're one of those I know that have read MALC twice and you should well
>> know how this betterness is connected to the four laws of Thermodynamics.
>> You said you liked the ride down from the top, didn't you?
>>
>> "Quality is not just some abstraction; it's something that guides your life
>> every minute of every second [of every day] even though you do not
>> intellectually recognize that it is so. .... " (snipped in from another post
>> by Ant this beautiful morning in May.)
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Jan Anders
>>
>> btw
>>
>> I think some people here should show some respect for the challenge you
>> give'em. Without your posting MD would be a dry and dusty place and I enjoy
>> dmb's excellent replies to you very much. I think you are a good grindstone
>> for his intellectual edge. Without that respect the dialogue will not longer
>> be fruitful as it then turns over to be a pure destructive issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3 maj 2013 x kl. 09.04 MarshaV wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Oooops, another correction:
>>>
>>> J-A,
>>>
>>> Since you did not clarify your specific question, let me suggest that to
>>> reify the pot misses the importance of the hollow, empty space inside.
>>>
>>>
>>> Marsha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 14 apr 2013 kl. 11.18 skrev MarshaV:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings J-A,
>>>>>
>>>>> Many is not all. There's a difference between an universal qualifier and
>>>>> an existential qualifier. I do appreciate the usefulness of concepts,
>>>>> but I hold all static patterns of value to be hypothetical, especially
>>>>> those I present. I find it more useful to consider objects of knowledge
>>>>> (stuff in the encyclopedia) as 'static patterns of value' ("patterns")
>>>>> rather than 'truths'.
>>>>
>>>> "More" useful.... This is the old SOM vs MOQ stuff. You pick the right
>>>> side. But nothing new.
>>>
>>>
>>> Okay, nothing new..
>>>
>>> ... more below. ...
>>> ___
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 15, 2013, at 5:56 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <janander...@telia.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 15 apr 2013 kl. 08.31 MarshaV wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings J-A,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 14, 2013, at 6:10 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <janander...@telia.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> J-A:
>>>>>>>> why should you burn the clay?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>>>> Before (when soft and malleable) and after a firing (when firm), the
>>>>>>> clay is still in a constant state of changing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> J-A:
>>>>>> Sure, but the important thing about the usefulness, the value, during
>>>>>> the pot's time, is that it is hard enough to keep the content from
>>>>>> leaking out of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>> A different point-of-view might be that the functioning value of the pot
>>>>> is the empty space inside it.
>>>>
>>>> J-A:
>>>> Hey, Straw man, that was not the question.
>>>
>>> What specifically was the question?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> You sound like that stablity is constantly inferior to change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>> No, I've made no such judgmental statement.
>>>>
>>>> JA:
>>>> Yes you did by using the words "more useful" which you just accidentally
>>>> snipped out...
>>>
>>> The "more useful" was applied to a different context. Please tie them
>>> together so I might understand your point. (see text above)
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I say that they are even and that all we know about this ever-change is
>>>>>> patterned.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that static patterns of value are objects of knowledge that
>>>>> represent what we conventionally know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm. Can one know what a pattern is not?
>>>>
>>>> J-A:
>>>> Nothing could be easier: Nothingness, No-thingness. Also, according to
>>>> your ever-changing theology: As everything is under a constant flux of
>>>> change, What a pattern is, now, is not what it was before and not what it
>>>> will be later. So, what a pattern is not is what it was before and it is
>>>> also what it will be in the future. :-)
>>>
>>> It is not anti-intellectual or a contradiction to understand that patterns
>>> may maintain a static, stable identity at the same time as they and their
>>> context are undergoing constant change. Think of the Ship of Theseus, or a
>>> parade (Hume) where everyone drops out but is replaced so that the parade
>>> is maintained, or the body with its cells constantly being replaced.
>>> Things can change - flow - and yet have permanence; think of a river. Above
>>> all (the MoQ being in agreement with Radical Empiricism) this definition
>>> agrees with my experience. :-)
>>>
>>> I sometimes like to consider a pattern, justice for instance, as all that
>>> is opposite-non-justice. But we've been down this path before.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have a nice day Marsha and take it easy with that piece of clay
>>>
>>>
>>> You have a nice day too. And don't squeeze the accordion too much.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
