> djh said to Ant: > 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. ...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. .... > > > > dmb said: > For the second time today, I'll object to the notion that my position is > limited to just one of the two contexts. Maybe this misconception stems from > the fact that my complaints about Marsha are directed at her misuse of words > and concepts. This is just a matter of relevance, a matter of sticking to the > topic and not a denial of the MOQ's mysticism, not a knock on the value of > meditation or introspection. As a response or answer to the charges of > anti-intellectualism and empty relativism, that is simply not relevant. It is > an absurd non-sequitor. Basically, it's just not an answer at all. That's my > objection. She deploys this half-baked Buddhism instead of answering the > actual charges. I'd be happy to discuss the nature of enlightenment, > especially as Pirsig construes it. But, for example, that simply has nothing > to do with whether or not it makes any sense to describe static patterns as > ever-changing. Meditation has nothing to do with whether or not that makes > any sense. Let me use an analogy here. > > The MOQ is just an analogy. As Ant puts it, the MOQ is just a working > postulation. As Pirsig puts it, of course it just an analogy. Everything is > just an analogy, but the dialecticians don't know that. In ZAMM we get that > simple yet radical description of reality as we know it; it's analogies all > the way down. Quality is the source and substance of these analogies, it is > the continuing stimulus which caused us to create this world of analogies. > You might say that in the MOQ, we know that our static reality is a just > movie. The mythos is this movie, this static reality in which we all live. If > you think this movie is the real reality and not a giant pile of man-made > analogies, then yes, it is an illusion. But the MOQ says that about SOM and > explicitly rejects SOM for that reason, among others. > > > So, let's say that Pirsig has said to us, SOM is not reality. That's just a > movie, a pile of analogies and, by the way, it's not a very good movie. It > has serious flaws, one of which is that it doesn't know it's just a movie. > Let me show you a better movie, one that freer for knowing that we are > constructing it and we can make another if we like too. The MOQ itself, that > is the particular arrangement of concepts and descriptions we find in > Pirsig's writings, is that movie. He knows it's just an analogy and so do we. > Reality itself (DQ), according to this movie, can never be included within > the movie. The movie is within and subordinate to the primary empirical > reality (DQ). > > In this analogy, then, I'm trying to talk about the structure of the movie. I > know it's a movie but it still has certain parts that go with other parts. I > know I'm not talking about the primary empirical reality or the mystic > reality or the Ultimate Truth of anything.
[djh] Right dmb - you're talking about the static quality distinction between DQ and sq. Metaphysics is static quality. This is context two. Context two also includes a description of context one (Dynamic Quality). Marsha is not interested in context two because to her it is not the 'Ultimate Truth'. But what should be obvious is that all words on an intellectual discussion forum are confined to context two because in order to have this intellectual discussion of ours here we must make the assumption (unless occasionally it's better not to) that these things existed before we experienced them. I've actually written a post to you about how what you're saying isn't incorrect but the only area we disagree is that we cannot simultaneously hold both contexts… In other words - Your words are intellectually confined to the second context - everyones are. 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
