David,
On Sep 10, 2013, at 7:57 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [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.
Marsha:
Yes, I think the evolutionary, hierarchical levels add something important from
the Western perspective that Buddhism lacks.
>>>>> [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.
Marsha:
Huh? What else might experience *include*?
> 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.
Huh?
>>> [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?
I accept the MoQ's idea that the world is nothing but value. Are you now
asking me accept your particular values?
>>> [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?
I accept the MoQ's idea that the world is nothing but value. From a Dynamic
Quality (unpatterened) view nothing is right or wrong, better or worse. >From
the static (patterned) view a pattern exist because it is useful. I also
accept that on the static (conventional) level *individual judgements* of
what's bad or good will differ because of different static pattern histories
and differences in the present dynamic conditions.
>>> [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.
See above explanation.
>>>>> [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?
I didn't suggest "doing away" with common sense, but it would be beneficial to
remember they are also, as Einstein proclaims "collection of prejudices".
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
