>> [djh] >> From wiki >> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Paths_to_liberation#Noble_Eightfold_Path) >> >> "The most notable of these descriptions is the Noble Eightfold Path, which >> was presented in the first discourse of the Buddha and is considered the >> essence of the Buddhist path (magga). The Noble Eightfold Path is typically >> presented as a set of eight interconnected factors or conditions, that when >> developed together, lead to the cessation of dukkha (suffering)." >> >> Buddhism is about enlightenment not making static quality better. As RMP >> explains - in the sixth Century B.C. there was no sign of "evolutionary >> progress[or improvement over time], and Buddhism, accordingly, does not pay >> attention to it." >> >> What the MOQ adds to Buddhism is that as a result of freeing oneself from >> suffering through the perfection of static patterns; things get better. In >> the wake of suffering - evolution occurs. Or as RMP puts it.. >> >> "If you’re not suffering from anything, there’s no need to be free." >> > > Wikipedia? Lol!!! I'll stop meditating and throw away all my books, > because Wikipedia has shown me the way. - I am sure I can find different > words used by different Buddhist authorities.
[djh] I'm not saying to stop meditating. I'm just saying that Buddhism is not about making things better as 'in the sixth Century B.C. there was no sign of "evolutionary progress[or improvement over time], and Buddhism, accordingly, does not pay attention to it.' As a result of waking up, things improve - it is these things which the MOQ pays attention to in its evolutionary hierarchy. >>>> [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. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> RMP has said that "Truth is not supposed to be determined by social >>> popularity." So then, by what zero-point or specific standards are >>> logical consistency and economy of explanation to be determined? >> >> [djh] >> By what zero-point is anything to be determined? Since when was >> 'zero-point' the best starting point? To me, the best starting point is >> experience and this experience is quality. > > Marsha: > You're the one who implied experience was not always enough. The best > starting point is experience; and the best evaluation is *agreement with > experience*. Does that work for you? [djh] No, it doesn't because experience *includes* the quality of logical consistency and economy of explanation. As shown in the hail explanation above, even if I haven't experienced hail directly I can see the quality of its existence thanks to the explanation and logic of rain + ice = hail. It's not an experience vs logic or experience vs economy of explanation. The quality of both is part of experience. >> [djh] >> If something is good - it exists. > > Hmmm. [djh] I like your response but I think this is really the crux why I disagree with you. Can you not see that quality exists. And this quality is the standard by which we can judge things? >> [djh] >> Logical consistency is better than vagueness and incoherence. > > Without standards, these are all relative concepts, and that's fine by me, > but don't hit me over the head with your relative opinions. [djh] Why are you removing the standard of Quality? Quality exists. If something is good it is good. End of story. Or do you disagree with this? >> [djh] >> Therefore, the quality of logical consistency exists. Intellectually - >> something explained well is better than something explained badly. >> Therefore, economy of explanation exists. > > Exists as relative concepts. This is just the type of discussion I choose to > avoid. It goes nowhere. If you are after a definition that represents > certainty, I am not the person for this discussion. And RMP said "Truth is > not supposed to be determined by social popularity." So where are we? [djh] I'm not after certainty. I'm after quality. There's a difference between these two things which for some reason or another you appear to be missing? Remember the MOQ and Lila are all about what happens when we place Quality at the center of our understanding. >>>> [djh] >>>> 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. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> Are you talking about formal logic or some kind of common sense? I have >>> never said or thought discussions were bad. >> >> [djh] >> Again, I'm talking about the everyday logic which we all use including in >> this discussion right now. > > Common sense? Well, you've heard what Einstein said: "Common sense is the > collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." [djh] Right. Do away with common sense though and what are you? 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
