J-A, If you do not familiar the process of firing clay, you might think about choosing a different example for your attempts at a thought experiment. Does your imagining clay firing stay the same?
Marsha On May 8, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 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
