Would please answer my last question: Do you mean by that "still in constant change" that there is NO change when the clay is burned? Y/N
J A 9 maj 2013 x kl. 09.21 skrev MarshaV: > > 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 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
