Greetings John,
You are correct. Alan Wallace's thinking, as reflected in his writing, is
elegant. And yes, it is crucial to understand that pure experience is
free from any 'conceptual framework.' That is the key, and I hope my
stating not this, not that echos my agreement with that
Greetings,
I have read that the primary goal of Nagarjuna's discourse is to overcome the
notion of essence or inherent existence (svabhava). I suggest the primary goal
of RMP for the West, with his presentation of the MoQ, is to overcome a
subject-object-metaphysics. Has this topic become
Hello again Mark,
If you were suggesting that 'gravitation' refers to a particular static pattern
of value, what exactly comprises (every last bit of it) that pattern?
Can such a question be answered? If yes, what is the answer? If no,
why not?
You might understand why, at the moment, I
going to clean this up a little
Hello again Mark,
If you were suggesting that 'gravitation' refers to a particular static pattern
of value, what exactly comprises (every last bit of it) that pattern?
Can such a question be answered? If yes, what is the answer? If no,
why not?
You
Marsha:
I suggest the primary goal of RMP for the West, with his presentation of the
MoQ, is to overcome a subject-object-metaphysics. Has this topic become
unplugged?
Andre:
No, you are the only one that keeps on unplugging it. As matter of fact, you
keep on reinforcing the impossibility
On 6/7/11 3:15 PM, 118 ununocti...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Joe,
I am not sure what words are manifestation of. Perhaps you mean the static.
As it turns out, words help create the static.
Before we learn words, we live in dynamic quality. Another creator of the
static is our comparison to
On 6/7/11 9:13 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Joe --
I had asked for an explanation of what you meant by the statement
In a DQ/SQ metaphysics there is something indefinable.
You replied:
... I find the indefinable full of meaning, since it forces me to
ask: How do
[Marsha] You might understand why, at the moment, I think the best answer
would be:
all-that-is-opposite-from-non-gravitation, and I sometimes visualize
the pattern
as a cloud of probability.
I don't think it is possible for any concept p,
to understand all that is non-p nor to
Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason without them.
(Emphasis is Pirsig's. ZAMM, page 214.)
A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any
metaphysics. (Pirsig in Lila, page 64.)
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Marsha said:
...at the moment, I think the best answer would be:
all-that-is-opposite-from-non-gravitation, and I sometimes visualize the
pattern as a cloud of probability.
Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason without them.
(Emphasis is Pirsig's. ZAMM, page 214.)
A
Hi Joe,
The dynamic does not manifest, it IS.
Words are useless in terms of the dynamic as you have correctly pointed out.
If you take away words and the sense of other, you are left with DQ. This is
where we live most of the time. It is only in a societal function that we live
in sq.
Mark
[Harris]
the concept of free will is a non- starter, both philosophically and
scientifically. thoughts, moods, and desires of every sort simply spring
into view—and move us,
or fail to move us, for reasons that are, from a subjective point of view,
perfectly inscrutable.
Suppose I find
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote:
Mark,
You are posting on a site that accepts a DQ/SQ formulation for reality.
It's alright to say that the MOQ is nonsensical, to provoke a further
discussion of QUALITY, but your metaphysics seems to be based on
Hi Joe,
What you present does not make much sense to me.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Ham,
Writing it down does not make it so. The individual is indefinable. You
can ascribe any qualities you want to an individual. A Judge will decide
the
Hi Ham,
It is confusing. At one point Joe was stating that emotions were DQ.
He has changed his position and now states that DQ/sq is an
explanation for emotions. By this I think he means the interaction of
DQ and sq.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi
Hi Joe,
I would take this a step further and say that psychology is a
metaphysics. Would you agree?
Mark
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Joseph Maurer jh...@comcast.net wrote:
Hi Ham,
The foundation for all learning disciplines like psychology is metaphysics.
You have to be able to
Hi Marsha,
I was trying to understand what you mean by process. I suppose this
could be considered static since gravitation is fixed at a particular
time. It is my understanding that gravity represents the attraction
of one thing for another. We all exude gravity. So that is one of
its
Hello everyone
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:07 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Marsha said:
...at the moment, I think the best answer would be:
all-that-is-opposite-from-non-gravitation, and I sometimes visualize the
pattern as a cloud of probability.
dmb:
Definitions are
Hello everyone
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:01 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Harris]
the concept of free will is a non- starter, both philosophically and
scientifically. thoughts, moods, and desires of every sort simply spring
into view—and move us,
or fail to move us, for reasons that
Hi Craig,
On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:03 PM, craig...@comcast.net wrote:
[Marsha] You might understand why, at the moment, I think the best answer
would be:
all-that-is-opposite-from-non-gravitation, and I sometimes visualize
the pattern
as a cloud of probability.
I don't think it is
Hi Mark,
On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:48 PM, 118 wrote:
Hi Marsha,
I was trying to understand what you mean by process. I suppose this
could be considered static since gravitation is fixed at a particular
time. It is my understanding that gravity represents the attraction
of one thing for
On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:04 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason without them.
(Emphasis is Pirsig's. ZAMM, page 214.)
Marsha:
I use a dictionary all the time. I agree that you cannot reason without
definitions. How bright of you to understand
On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:07 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Marsha said:
...at the moment, I think the best answer would be:
all-that-is-opposite-from-non-gravitation, and I sometimes visualize the
pattern as a cloud of probability.
Definitions are the FOUNDATION of reason. You can't reason
On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:55 PM, Dan Glover wrote:
Hello everyone
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:07 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Marsha said:
...at the moment, I think the best answer would be:
all-that-is-opposite-from-non-gravitation, and I sometimes visualize the
pattern
[Craig, previously]
Suppose I find a wallet with ID. I might keep it. But as I deliberate, I
feel guilty decide to return the wallet. Then I rationalize: the owner
was careless, why should I do them any favors?
there is no reason to suppose
that my decision is fore-ordained before I
25 matches
Mail list logo
