Hi Paul,
On Jun 19, 2013, at 4:44 PM, Paul Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?
Why in this context was it important to offer the "refracted light" analogy?
From a metaphysical perspective, everything is an analogy.
>> 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.
Is "refracted light" a privileged analogy, the final word, the bottom line?
Why is that?
>> 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 don't see it as a shame. Why spoil a good thing. That is why I used the
quote in the first place. I bet you understand without me messing it up in
translation.
>>>> 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?
There are others:
All conditioned dharmas
Are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows,
Like dew drops and a lightning flash.
Contemplate them thus.
(The Diamond Sutra).
Is to understand this anti-intellectual?
>>> 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?
"No consequence" would be saying it has no value, but without value it would
not exist. Why debate? Is there only one possible outcome for all time?
>>> 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?
No, but you stated that to you the term 'mirage' means something that rests on
an appearance-reality distinction. That sounds quite definitive, quite fixed.
Why such a big problem? I accept the Metaphysics of Quality's central idea
that the world is nothing but value. No "just" about it.
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
