David,
On Jul 29, 2013, at 7:36 AM, David Harding wrote:
>> djh:
>> I don't know I haven't been reading David Morey. But I'm not saying there
>> is only 'good reasons' in science to make assumptions. I'm saying that
>> there are good reasons (and we actually do this all the time) to make
>> assumptions that things exist before we experience them in our daily lives.
>
>
>> Marsha:
>> Provisionally this seems often to be the assumption.
>
> djh:
> And you're talking from some kind of God like perspective here? You never
> make these assumptions? Your statement is redundant, and tells us little
> about what you think. What do you Marsha or Lucy personally, think about
> this?
>
> Do you even like intellectual discussion? You appear not to enjoy
> intellectual discussion but the avoidance of it.
>
>> Marsha:
>> If assumptions were turtle, it's turtles all the way down.
>
> More redundancy and vagueness. What does the above sentence tell us about
> turtles or assumptions?
>
> I'll just ask you another question - Is there two contexts of the MOQ and how
> different are they? And does the strength of the contrast between the two
> contexts add to the strength of the MOQ? Or is it best to blur the lines
> between the two contexts so they become one?
Marsha:
When you wrote to Ant:
[djh]
Ant - It is a good idea when talking with folks to change your words and
even your perspective to
explain things to them. Despite her claims to the contrary - Marsha
fails to see the value of
assuming things exist before we experience them as we do in the second
context. Marsha is well
and truly stuck in the first context. My previous post was 'confined'
to the first context because I'm
talking with Marsha.
(full post copied below)
You wrote that "Despite her claims to the contrary - ...", which indicates to
me that you are in discussion with your projections and not my statements. I
have no desire to have a discussion with a misjudging mindreader and his
misconceptions.
In keeping more with the topic I had in mind for this thread, I'd suggest
considering:
"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."
(RMP, '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)
“Your visions will become clear only when you can look into your own heart.
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes”
(C.G. Jung)
Marsha
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Re: [MD] The Two Contexts of the MOQ
On Jul 28, 2013, at 11:55 PM, David Harding wrote:
> Ant]
> David, I rather like the phrase “pretend” here
> though “Context 2 of the MOQ” (to use Paul’s terminology) is a little more
> than
> just pretending! If I’m having critical surgery, I don’t want the surgeons
> just
> to be pretending; I want them to be – at the very least – assuming that their
> surgical procedures will work in practice i.e. that the surgeon/s will have
> previous assumptions (or postulations) that have been previously seen to work.
>
>
> [Ant also later]
> David, I think you need both the Two Contexts that
> Paul was talking about to fully understand and to fully apply the MOQ. The
> same goes for Buddhism or any other
> philosophy that uses Tetralemmic logic.
>
> If you confine yourself to Context 1 then you going
> to be paralysed into no-action or some sort of relativism where the static
> patterns are considered to have equal value/no-value; if you confine yourself
> just to Context 2, then you’re going to start making the error that the MOQ
> is stating
> something absolute about the world. The
> MOQ is just a “working postulation” and I think this what the Two Contexts is
> designed to help illustrate.
[djh]
Ant - It is a good idea when talking with folks to change your words and even
your perspective to explain things to them. Despite her claims to the
contrary - Marsha fails to see the value of assuming things exist before we
experience them as we do in the second context. Marsha is well and truly stuck
in the first context. My previous post was 'confined' to the first context
because I'm talking with Marsha.
If you talk with Marsha from the second context [as dmb does] then you're not
going to get anywhere because she will continually call it all an illusion or
'just ideas' or something like that. Dmb and Marsha play a game of name
calling from either perspective. The only way you can show Marsha the second
context is by speaking from her perspective - the first context - and pointing
to the alternative context which is often times opposed to the value she sees
in the first context. There is a oldness and staleness and a smell to the
second context which Marsha doesn't like. But that's true only if we look at
it from the first context. There is an entirely different value to this second
context irrespective of the fact that it might be something different from the
other perspective. And the only way you can show someone like Marsha that is
not by pointing out logical inconsistencies in her words because she's not
interested in that. But by speaking to what she values - the first context -
and showing her that there is another perspective.
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
