Hi Marsha, >> It is not that the mirage does not exist. A mirage appears to have > >> substance, but upon close inspection it does not. > > > > On close inspection a mirage is "really" refracted light, right. So by > > analogy, upon close inspection, what are static patterns "really"? > > Refracted light, too, is an analogy.
So what? Why is that important? > I have no idea what you mean by "really"? > I mean that which something turns out to be when it is seen that it is not what it merely appears to be, with reference to the analogous relationship of static patterns to mirages. > I saw Dave's interpretation but, seeing as you want to push this analogy, > > what's your MOQ translation? > > I am "pushing" nothing, and I have no desire to translate it into MoQ > terms. > Well that's a shame, given the forum we are in. >>> I advocate a middle way between the extremes of such things as the > >>>>> "illusion" and "certainty" you dichotomise above and the two > contexts I > >>>>> discern in the MOQ offer a practical way to implement the middle way > >>>>> philosophically. > >>>> > >>>> I am not interested in truth, so there is no dichotomization. > >>> > >>> > >>> You suggested that the alternative to your mirage analogy was clinging > to > >>> certainty but now seem to say that.....well, I don't know actually, > that > >>> you didn't mean it? > >> > >> That was my poor presentation. I didn't mean to juxtapose the two > >> statements as extremes. I should have left it at stating that > recognizing > >> a mirage for what it is is not "relativism, a nihilism and an > >> anti-intellectualism." > >> > >>> Should I ignore anything you say because you have no > >>> interest in whether it is true (by any definition) or not? > >> > >> That's not for me to decide. > >> > >> > >>> I'm being genuine here. > >> > >> Me too. Ignore me if you like. > >> > >> > >>> You will know from your reading that Pirsig translates true > >>> as "having high intellectual quality" so are you not interested > >>> in whether your words are of high intellectual quality? > >> > >> "... the good to which truth is subordinate is intellectual and Dynamic > >> Quality ..." > >> > >> The good is good enough for me. I can be concerned with presenting the > >> best explanation I can without worrying about truth. > > > > OK, it's just that you seemed to be saying that because static pattern = > > mirage is just an analogy I shouldn't take it too seriously or read > > anything into it. > > I was saying that a mirage, as an analogy for a static pattern, is not > "relativism, a nihilism and an anti-intellectualism, and it was written in > response to a comment dmb made. > OK, but you do think a mirage is a good analogy for static quality, right? > > But if we start from the premise that everything we say, > > think, conceptualise etc is an analogy there is no "just" about it. > Either > > we mean what we say or we don't and some analogies are better than > others. > > I take every last bit of it to be analogy, turtles all the way down, and > that includes the big "we". I have no idea what your reference to "just" > is indicating. That last sentence is too much a cliche to deal with. > It is indicating that saying that something is an analogy is of no consequence to whether its quality is up for debate. Cliche or not, do you disagree? > > To me a mirage means something which rests on an appearance-reality > > distinction by definition so when we apply that analogy to something in a > > philosophical discussion it has consequences whether you meant them or > not. > > Oh, a philosophical discussion should be restricted to your interests? I > don't remember Jay Garfield or Nagarjuna referring directly to the > "appearance-reality distinction" in the MMK. Though, if that philosophical > problem is a concern of yours you might have been able to interpret in > that light. Did RMP speak *directly* to the "appearance-reality > distinction" as a named philosophical problem? I don't remember him > addressing it such. > Of course it shouldn't be restricted to my interests any more than a conversation should be restricted to yours. But are you really suggesting that the appearance-reality problem is no more than a little hobby horse of mine? Paul 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
