J-A, I did not write "still in constant change".
Before (when soft and malleable), during firing, and after a firing (when firm and stable), the clay is still in a constant state of changing. Marsha On May 9, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Jan Anders Andersson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 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
