Hello Arlo,
Been thinking that we can think and characterize reality only subject to
language, which is conventional (sq) and says nothing ultimately true. Do you
accept your last statement (Assimilating language...) as true?
Marsha
On May 10, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Arlo Bensinger
On May 10, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:
[Marsha]
Is this about an autonomous individual?
[Arlo]
No. In this paragraph the author is stating the extremes, or poles, of
structure (determinism?) and agency (free will?). There have been other
terms for these, but within
[Marsha]
Do you accept your last statement (Assimilating language...) as true?
[Arlo had said]
Assimilating language provides us with far greater capacity to act than a feral
human would have, albeit it at the same time (like roadways) channeling our
thoughts in certain ways.
[Arlo]
Its
[Marsha]
It may be that you would be very content to be chained in Plato's cave? Keep
on truckin'...
[Arlo]
If you think a feral child with no language is freer, then by all means, have
the part of your brain that stores language lobotomized and join the free
crowd... I'll chip in on the
On May 11, 2011, at 6:58 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:
[Marsha]
Do you accept your last statement (Assimilating language...) as true?
[Arlo had said]
Assimilating language provides us with far greater capacity to act than a
feral
human would have, albeit it at the same time (like
On May 11, 2011, at 7:02 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:
[Marsha]
It may be that you would be very content to be chained in Plato's cave? Keep
on truckin'...
[Arlo]
If you think a feral child with no language is freer, then by all means,
have
the part of your brain that stores
[Marsha]
Have you had the experience of a feral human?
[Arlo]
I've not had experience as a rock either, but it doesn't take much
empirical observation to know that I have a greater range of agency than one.
I see you're trying to drag this down into your typical nonsense
games. Have fun with
[Marsha]
Talk about stating extremes... Your comments are better than a poke
in the eye with a sharp stick, and just as exaggerated.
[Arlo]
Just responding in kind...
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
On May 11, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:
[Marsha]
Talk about stating extremes... Your comments are better than a
poke in the eye with a sharp stick, and just as exaggerated.
[Arlo]
Just responding in kind...
Marsha:
Are a human having assimilating language against a feral
[Marsha]
Are a human having assimilating language against a feral human the
only two choices.
[Arlo]
Do you have a third choice?
[Marsha]
Does your theory hinge on this type of exaggeration?
[Arlo]
Give me some other options and I'll let you know. Seems to me that,
within a MOQ, the path is
John said:
Social perfection: Celebrity
Leif replied:
Wouldn't social perfection be a society that supports intellectual patterns?
The same way as biological perfection would be an organsim that can support
social value patterns?
dmb says:
Yea, it's better for a society to be guided by
On May 11, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:
[Marsha]
Are a human having assimilating language against a feral human the only two
choices.
[Arlo]
Do you have a third choice?
Marsha:
There is a state of experience beyond language. I think it is accessible to
yogis and buddhas,
On May 11, 2011, at 9:54 AM, MarshaV wrote:
One an lift off that hot stove...
One can lift off that hot stove...
___
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
Marsha:
And speaking of mirrors, language entraps us within a view like a
hall of mirrors. Language provides the entire context of our world-view.
We cannot see anything accept what the word proclaims because we
are looking through the word to see the world. To understands how the
word
[Marsha]
Mark has it right, words are a kind of imprisonment.
[Arlo]
Mark, and you, have it half-right. No one said language was not
constraining, not me, not any of the structuration theorists I
mentioned. Of course it is. So you if focus on *that*, of course
words can seem like a prison.
On May 11, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:
[Marsha]
Mark has it right, words are a kind of imprisonment.
[Arlo]
Mark, and you, have it half-right. No one said language was not constraining,
not me, not any of the structuration theorists I mentioned. Of course it is.
So you if
[Marsha]
You are correct, and I am a very conventional woman. Yes, some of
this conventional chit-chat is good.
[Arlo]
I think language gives us a lot more than conventional chit chat.
Supermarkets, farming, poetry, global travel, plumbing, heating,
motorcycles, games, books, etc etc. I
On May 11, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:
[Marsha]
You are correct, and I am a very conventional woman. Yes, some of this
conventional chit-chat is good.
[Arlo]
I think language gives us a lot more than conventional chit chat.
Supermarkets, farming, poetry, global travel,
Hello Ham, and greetings from Bozeman. I almost feel like I'm on my own
Hajj. Hopefully I'll have time to share more of my experience later.
Ham:
I know you don't agree with my cosmology. You don't accept my
epistemology that Value (Quality) doesn't exist in the absence of
awareness.
John:
I'm a skeptic too, Marsha. And that's why I was so attracted to Royce's
take on absolute skepticism - when we come down to questioning everything,
the one rock-solid foundation we find that we can use to build a Quality
metaphysics is the indisputable fact that error exists.
Marsha:
As a
[Marsha]
Statically increased, as Dan reminded us: To the extent that one's
behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without
choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is
undefinable, one's behavior is free. [LILA}
[Arlo]
No, not just statically
On May 11, 2011, at 1:22 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:
[Marsha]
Have you lost sight of our language being all about the a subject and a verb
acting on a direct or indirect object?
[Arlo]
Language is the symbolic encoding of experience, the mutual sharing of
experience. The specific
Marsha to Arlo:
But this is a list devoted to metaphysics - the nature of reality -
so bottom line: there is no-thingness to know and no-self to know it...
Bo and Platt leave and everybody forgets that SOM has a major flaw.
Andre:
The flaw lies with you Marsha. When you say 'there is
On May 11, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:
Marsha to Arlo:
But this is a list devoted to metaphysics - the nature of reality -
so bottom line: there is no-thingness to know and no-self to know it...
Bo and Platt leave and everybody forgets that SOM has a major flaw.
Andre:
Marsha asked Arlo:
Have you lost sight of our language being all about the a subject and a verb
acting on a direct or indirect object?
dmb says:
You're conflating grammar with metaphysics. Using the english language does not
entail a commitment to SOM, as we plainly see in Pirsig's
Andre,
Just to mention Bo and Platt doesn't make me a snake in the grass. They both
were on this list for many, many years and spoke on many subjects. Platt's
Principles of the MoQ alone are far superior to anything you ever wrote on the
subject of the MoQ. Get over yourself.
Marsha
On May 11, 2011, at 2:49 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Marsha asked Arlo:
Have you lost sight of our language being all about the a subject and a verb
acting on a direct or indirect object?
dmb says:
You're conflating grammar with metaphysics. Using the english language does
not entail
Hi Arlo,
Well this is interesting since it was you who brought up the false
dichotomy in response to my post to John. The post was about
freedom, the opposite is bondage.
I could provide you with the analogy of trying to push one's raft
upstream a shallow river by using a pole (static) to keep
Hi Marsha,
What you say below is incorrect. You are speaking of the Social
Level. We think outside of language and only use it for
communication. Many things are true to the individual; things are
only agreed on at the Social level.
Cheers,
Mark
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:51 AM, MarshaV
[Marsha]
How do you know that the structure of our language has greatly enriched human
agency? Did you use active imagination? Projection? Because you thunk it?
[Arlo]
Simply by looking at what human agency was before language, and what it is now
for language devoid biological patterns.
Hi Mark,
On May 11, 2011, at 3:59 PM, 118 wrote:
Mark:
What you say below is incorrect. You are speaking of the Social
Level. We think outside of language and only use it for
communication.
Marsha:
I am speaking about thinking, not consciousness. I am sure human
beings are conscious
[DMB]
Right. Marsha is making a wildly invalid inference, taking a giant leap. She
takes the MOQ's claims about the limits of language to be a condemnation of
language as such.
[Arlo]
Yes, and this is also evident in Mark's words about words being a form of
imprisonment. I think she further
On May 11, 2011, at 4:22 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:
[DMB]
Right. Marsha is making a wildly invalid inference, taking a giant leap. She
takes the MOQ's claims about the limits of language to be a condemnation of
language as such.
[Arlo]
Yes, and this is also evident in Mark's words
[Mark]
My point was that there are other ways to see Freedom apart from you static
Western representation of such.
[Arlo]
The desperate response of you're static. Been expecting that. Theories of
agency/structure derive more from Russian thought than Euro-American histories.
FYI.
[Mark]
This is
DMB said:
Marsha .. takes the MOQ's claims about the limits of language to be a
condemnation of language as such.
Arlo agreed:
Yes, and this is also evident in Mark's words about words being a form of
imprisonment. I think she further confuses...
Marsha replied:
Not what I think at all...
On May 11, 2011, at 5:06 PM, david buchanan wrote:
DMB said:
Marsha .. takes the MOQ's claims about the limits of language to be a
condemnation of language as such.
Arlo agreed:
Yes, and this is also evident in Mark's words about words being a form of
imprisonment. I think she
Hi Arlo and all,
Evolution describes existential reality. How is Evolution DQ/SQ trapped in
an existential reality which is different from an empirical, experiential
reality?
Joe
On 5/11/11 1:22 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
snip
Marsha is trapped in a world where she still
hi
On May 11, 2011, at 2:49 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Marsha asked Arlo:
Have you lost sight of our language being all about the a subject and a verb
acting on a direct or indirect object?
The subjec acts in a certain wa.
Isnt this acting an event?
Aka quality?
leif
Moq_Discuss
Greeitngs Leif,
On May 11, 2011, at 5:37 PM, lgalv...@gmail.com wrote:
hi
On May 11, 2011, at 2:49 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Marsha asked Arlo:
Have you lost sight of our language being all about the a subject and a verb
acting on a direct or indirect object?
The subjec acts
[Marsha to Leif]
Within the language 'acting' is a verb, an event.
[Arlo]
An event is a noun. Acting is a verb.
[Marsha]
Have you made 'event' an object?
[Arlo]
Sounds like you have.
[Marsha]
Within the MoQ there is Dynamic Quality and interdependent, ever-changing
process/events/quality
Marsha to Arlo:
But this is a list devoted to metaphysics - the nature of reality -
so bottom line: there is no-thingness to know and no-self to know it...
Bo and Platt leave and everybody forgets that SOM has a major flaw.
Ron:
Indeed, mostly because you all take SOM to be the intellectual
Ron said:
Indeed, mostly because you all [Marsha, Bo and Platt] take SOM to be the
intellectual level. This equates to the intellectual level having a major flaw.
This explains the revolt against all percieved patterns of static quality.
dmb says:
That's right. Marsha has also recently said
Ron said:
Indeed, mostly because you all [Marsha, Bo and Platt] take SOM to be the
intellectual level. This equates to the intellectual level having a major flaw.
This explains the revolt against all percieved patterns of static quality.
dmb says:
That's right. Marsha has also recently said
Hi Marsha,
I think if you pay attention you will notice that we do not think in
words. The only time we do is when we are formulating a communication
or thinking within the social level. Thinking is much deeper than
that, and words are just the tip of the iceberg (as it were). Most of
our
Hi Arlo,
I am patient, and I will continue to explain these things to you as
best I can. I am simply presenting my opinion, so bear with me if I
seem exasperated.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:41 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
[Mark]
My point was that there are other ways to see
Marsha:
Ever-changingm but within a stable, predictable pattern.
On May 11, 2011, at 7:46 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:
[Marsha to Leif]
Within the language 'acting' is a verb, an event.
[Arlo]
An event is a noun. Acting is a verb.
[Marsha]
Have you made 'event' an object?
Marsha:
I not only agree with Mark that language is a kind of prison, but I also think
patterns are a kind of prison.
To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality
it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality,
which is undefinable,
Mark,
I define 'thinking' as the conventional naming and narration mentally
constructed using words. Awareness, on the other hand, can be of all
types of non-verbal experiences.
Marsha
On May 11, 2011, at 11:56 PM, 118 wrote:
Hi Marsha,
I think if you pay attention you will
48 matches
Mail list logo
