Steve to Andre:
As for the final location of the brush stroke being determined, of
course I think of it that way. It must be determined by_something_
for it to be at all meaningful.
Andre:
Thank you for making your position clear Steve and ,frankly, I don't know where
to start in my response
Hello Dan:
Thank you for taking the time going through my post in such a systematic
way. Your comments are most useful.
Kind regards.
Andre
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
Hi Andre,
Steve to Andre:
As for the final location of the brush stroke being determined, of
course I think of it that way. It must be determined by_something_
for it to be at all meaningful.
Andre:
Thank you for making your position clear Steve and ,frankly, I don't know
where to start
Andre said to Steve:
I see lots of static stuff being generated here with the aim of making life
nice and predictable, virtually shutting out any possibility of Dynamic
insights/change to ever be recognized let alone acted upon. This is SOM all the
way it seems to me...
Steve replied to
Hi Steve
I've followed the Free Will thread for some months with interest. Now it seems
obvious that both of you use a different static pattern behind the word
determinism.
Thanks for writing anyway. I enjoy it.
Jan-Anders
14 sep 2011 kl. 17.44 Steve wrote:
Hi Jan-Anders,
On Wed, Sep
Hi dmb,
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:02 AM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Andre said to Steve:
I see lots of static stuff being generated here with the aim of making life
nice and predictable, virtually shutting out any possibility of Dynamic
insights/change to ever be
[Ham]
Really, Arlo? If you can explain experience in the absence of a
sensible agent, you'll be doing RMP and the rest of us a momentous favor.
[Arlo]
I'm not going to waste time with your disingenous question, Ham. This is
like a flat-earther asking for proof the earth is round. You've
Andre said to Steve and dmb:
...I had hoped however that it would clarify some issues and perhaps that it
would 'settle' the seemingly months long debate between you two but...it seems
not. Excuse my own intellectual shortcomings but I am confused. ...Place this
[Lila's battle] in the context
Steve said to dmb:
...You need to point out where exactly the reasoning of the particular argument
in question depends on the assumption of the S/O picture if in fact it does and
show how he logic falls apart without that assumption. ...Now where exactly did
I invoke an SOM premise in that
dmb says:
Here's how I understand the operative terms. Determinism is doctrine that
says our actions are not really chosen by us, that we are not in control of
our actions.
Steve:
The problem with this definition is that the MOQ agrees that our
actions are not REALLY chosen by us since us
What does determinism profess?
It professes that those parts of the universe already laid down absolutely
appoint and decree what the other parts shall be. The future has no ambiguous
possibilities bidden in its womb; the part we call the present is compatible
with only one totality. Any
Steve said to dmb:
The problem with this definition is that the MOQ agrees that our actions are
not REALLY chosen by us since us doesn't have any REAL metaphysical status.
Lila doesn't REALLY have the patterns, the patterns have Lila.
dmb says:
No, the only problem is the one you are adding.
Hi Ham and all,
Metaphysics cannot be contained in mathematical descriptions, physics. It
is a different discipline.
SOM logic is tied to a theory of knowledge which uses an intentional/real
division in existence for a differentiation between knowledge and reality.
It is hard to plant a tree in
Arlo,
Why don't you do the rest of us a favor and answer Ham's ingenuous
question as he suggested? As soon as you begin attacking Ham on
issues that have nothing of substance and have nothing to do with the
subject, you look like a complete idiot! Such a thing make this forum
look like a teenage
Hi Steve,
I am not sure where you are getting your definitions from. Since you
read William James, I will refer to my recollection of what he wrote
in the Pluralistic Universe (in my own words of course, since unlike
MRB my memory is not photographic, (just kidding MRB)). Determinism
means that
Dan:
As long as there are preferences, there are desires. As long as there
are desires, Dynamic Quality cannot emerge.
Ron:
One must add that what allows DQ to emerge in our lives lies in
the kinds of preferences we make. One prefers to elimenate desires
because one prefers betterness.
[Mark]
Why don't you do the rest of us a favor and answer Ham's ingenuous question as
he suggested?
[Arlo]
Because I have no interest in a dialogue he has already decided upon. Is that
hard for you to comprehend?
[Mark]
As soon as you begin attacking Ham on issues that have nothing of
Hi Ham,
I have no problem using Value as a verb. When we are presented with two
different qualities, we value one more than another. We then state that it has
higher value, for such is our interpretation of the two apparitions of Quality.
There is nothing contradicting MoQ there in my
On Sep 15, 2011, at 8:45 PM, 118 wrote:
Sure one can deny the existence of Self like Marsha does,
but that is nonsense.
Mark,
I deny the existence of an independent, autonomous self. The
self is a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent
and impermanent, static patterns of
If everything is ever changing, then what is static? Why did Pirsig use that
specific word?
Mark
On Sep 14, 2011, at 12:10 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hello Ham,
My understanding of static quality (Value) has always been about process:
Static patterns of value are
Mark,
Yes, everything is constantly changing! I imagine that RMP uses the word
'static' because patterns are ever-changing processes that pragmatically
tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern.
Marsha
On Sep 16, 2011, at 12:11 AM, 118 wrote:
If
Hi Ham,
On Sep 14, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Ham Priday hampd...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Steve (Arlo mentioned) --
On Tues, 9/13/11 at 12:07 PM, Steven Peterson peterson.st...@gmail.com
wrote:
On p222 of Lila's Child, Bodvar asks: If the world is composed of
values, then who is doing the
I agree. Static is not the best word. SQ is the apparition or expression of
Quality through our senses as expressed through our active memory. Most of our
experiences throughout the day are not SQ, as mindfulness shows us. Since
there is so much it does not become part of our active memory,
On Sep 15, 2011, at 1:25 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Steve said to dmb:
...You need to point out where exactly the reasoning of the particular
argument in question depends on the assumption of the S/O picture if in fact
it does and show how he logic falls apart without that assumption.
OK, so you do believe in the existence of Self, my mistake.
Mark
On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:20 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
On Sep 15, 2011, at 8:45 PM, 118 wrote:
Sure one can deny the existence of Self like Marsha does,
but that is nonsense.
Mark,
I deny the existence of an
Arlo,
I stick with Piraig's MoQ. It is you who are way out in left field. If you
want to believe you don't exist, be my guest.
If you are only going to converse with those that agree with you, then what the
fuck are you doing addressing me or Ham? You need to be in the Mutual
Admiration
Mark,
The self neither exists, nor doesn't exist, nor both exists doesn't exist,
nor neither exists and doesn't exist.
Marsha
On Sep 16, 2011, at 12:44 AM, 118 wrote:
OK, so you do believe in the existence of Self, my mistake.
Mark
On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:20 PM, MarshaV
27 matches
Mail list logo
