YES
I am confused.
Do you mean by that "still in constant change" that there is NO change when the
clay is burned?
Jan Anders
8 maj 2013 x kl. 11.34 skrev MarshaV:
>
> 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 <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 15 apr 2013 kl. 08.31 MarshaV wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greetings J-A,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 14, 2013, at 6:10 AM, Jan Anders Andersson
>>>>>> <[email protected]> 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
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
