>> [djh] >> How else can our values 'interconnect' if we do not work through our >> differences by trying to understand one another and how our values are >> different? > > [Marsha] > You seem to be steeped in presuppositions. I am again working through my > value with Nagarjuna's MMK (through J. Garfield). My first reading was in > 2006; this is my fourth reading. I am an introvert. I have a relationship > with Nagarjuna and Robert Pirsig through their words and my own contemplation > and experiences. But I have also learned from people here, or I wouldn't > still be here. I would like to hear more from the ones who've gone silent.
[djh] Presuppositions? I'm asking these questions because I think that every discussion on here has taken place under the presupposition that we all understand what this place is for and that we're all here for the same thing. But to me it is increasingly clear that we are here for very different reasons with very different values… This has resulted in arguments and disagreements and name calling and all the rest of it because if we presume that we're all here for the same thing and we actually are here for very different reasons, with very different values and intentions, then disharmony results. And this is what has happened; especially with regard to dmb and yourself. Anyway, it seems to me that Nagarjuna is all about the insight that all things arise from DQ. Other things exist on this planet that are not Dynamic Quality right? Is the insight that DQ is the source of all things the only valuable insight of the MOQ? >> [djh] >> I have heard a Buddhist Monk say that Buddhist Philosophy is *not* Buddhism >> and I'd agree. Buddhist philosophy is not Buddhism and is an intellectual >> exercise. > > [Marsha] > That is one point of view. There are millions of volumes containing *not* > Buddhism. Nagarjuna argues all is emptiness, including emptiness. How > might one respond? Yes, no and all of the above? Mu? The Ultimate Truth is > that there is no Ultimate Truth? The 'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially > a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity? - Find out for yourself! > > Meditation is not Buddhism either. But the Buddha said the way was > awareness, and meditation might be considered a practice to develop > awareness, opening to awareness. There is nothing I can say. [djh] Yes. If there is nothing you can say, then why are you speaking? And yes that's an honest question. >> [djh] >> RMP's writings do indeed describe a whole bunch of things which aren't just >> intellectual. They describe biological values and social values and >> mystical values and cultural values too.. But all these descriptions >> themselves *are* intellectual for they are not the values themselves but a >> representation which we can use to manipulate and represent within a >> metaphysics. > > [Marsha] > I would love to discuss this with RMP. I don't consider the Intellectual > Level merely 'thinking about'. [djh] RMP is not here though Marsha? Isn't the point of this discussion to talk about the MOQ regardless of the fact that RMP isn't here? Is it his word is the only good one? Or are there other folks with good ideas too? Anyway - if you're interested in talking about this regardless of the fact that RMP isn't here - I'll start us off. The intellectual level is the things which we think about. That's what comprises the intellectual level. The intellectual level is intellectual static patterns of value. For these static patterns of value to respond to Dynamic Quailty - well they need someone to *think about* something. You're right, thinking about something isn't the intellectual level - 'thinking about' something is the intellectual level responding to Dynamic Quality. >> [djh] >> I agree with the Buddha's sentiments here as well. However, as you say - >> that's not to say we shouldn't *try* and understand one another. It's all >> about how long we're willing to do this for. And indeed how we do it. > > [Marsha] > Show me even one example of a successful discussion? Yours and anyone else? > That does not mean they don't have value. But it does mean that I, > personally, won't be intimidated by someone's temper tantrum and spitefulness > if things don't intellectually go their way. You want to name it "No one's > the boss of me", I prefer taking the advice to "Place no head above your > own". [djh] You also seem to be steeped in presuppositions. Any discussion which is valuable is as a result - successful. Unless you think there is a scale of success outside of value? A valuable discussion involves being honest and talking *through* our differences. *Why* might we see things differently? You say 'people having different static pattern histories and differing circumstances' might cause them to disagree. I agree with this and the great thing about the MOQ is that it provides us with a language with which we can honestly discuss these different static pattern histories and put them in an evolutionary context. Don't you agree? Do you like that about the MOQ - to intellectually rank things morally/evolutionarily? >> [djh] >> As I've said - I think we can really only do it by being honest and >> explaining our understanding and respectfully disagreeing and then trying to >> find the underlying values and a better understanding of where the >> difference in values lie. As I've said to dmb and many others - I don't >> think we can do that by implying sinister motives of others or ignoring >> their values. What we value is the whole thing - not the logic we use or >> the lack of it.. > > [Marsha] > You cannot mean formal logic? No just everyday logic. Like the logic with which your words form. > With "Check the archives." given as evidence, I can only laugh at the use of > the word, and I do laugh. Lots! But yes, it is all about what we value and > checking it against experience. [djh] It is all about what we value. But I think we need to do more than check something against our experience. What if, as you say, our experience is different? Our 'personal life histories and circumstance' is different? Can we then just never see the value in what someone else says? The great thing about the intellectual level of the MOQ provides a way for us to test how good something is with the aid of logical consistency and economy of explanation as well. What if I have never experienced hail before but I have experienced rain and I have experienced ice. Then in this case I can know what hail is using logic and very rough explanation of Rain + Ice = Hail. Then when other folks refer to hail - I'll know what it is, even if I've never experienced it before. Logic has its valuable use beyond our own personal experience and can point to us things which are valuable which we might not have experienced otherwise. This is why logic on this discussion board is good. This is why explaining things and talking through things on this discussion board is good. Because if we do these things then we can discover things which are good which we might not have experienced otherwise. >> [djh] >> Well I'm sorry that you feel that way Marsha. Sadly, I think the 'bullshit' >> which you are referring to was the result of a miscommunication. I was >> making the point that to openly claim 'you don't care about x' is >> contradictory as clearly anyone does care about something - even by giving >> something a name, or mentioning it is a form of caring. In other words - I >> do think that you care about what dmb thinks or says; regardless of whether >> you claim to or not. > > [Marsha] > You presented yourself as having made an exact search of the archives with an > exact quantitative result. I have the post saved. > > There are types of behavior that do not any longer move me. In some ways, > *I* am already dead. [djh] Okay then. Hopefully still alive enough to respond :-) 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
