>> [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] Okay. That's surprising to me that you agree here so that's good. It's a welcome surprise :-) >>> 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*? [djh] Experience is quality. Quality is infinitely definable. Whatever is good exists. So experience includes anything which is good. > >> [djh] >> 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] Again, I appreciate your honesty. But I think there is more to a quality idea than if it just agrees with our experience. A quality idea is also logical and can be explained. The MOQ is both of these things. Do you agree? >>>> [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] Not at all. I'm just confused by your pondering response to the statement that 'if something is good - it exists'. And I'm also confused by statements like the one below where you say that 'without standards(quality), these are all relative concepts'. It's as if you don't actually see that quality is the source of all things and so any concern that you have about a statement such as 'if something is good it exists' or 'logical consistency is better than vagueness' is totally unnecessary because the quality creates the things, not the other way around. >>>> [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] Right, but we can also use logic to discover or explain what is intellectually good regardless of the fact that we have different static pattern histories. This is why discussions like the one are so good because we use logic to explain to the other person how we understand things. This logic is unavoidable in intellectual discussions. >>>>>> [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". > [djh] That's fine I get that - but it's a double edged sword - for if we only dismiss it as a 'collection of prejudices' then doing so neglects the value of common sense. However; logic isn't common sense. Logic is its own distinct intellectual thing which follows its own rules regardless of the fact that it is built out of the mythos. Furthermore, it's not a question of formal logic vs common sense. You've done a philosophical logic 101 class. Even casual conversations include their own logic with their own premises and conclusions. , 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
