dmb,
On Sep 8, 2013, at 2:00 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Now, if we say that concepts are ever-changing, we are confusing them with
reality. In the MOQ, this would be a matter of confusing or conflating DQ
with sq. Reality is experience which is ever-changing, flowing
Ron,
On Sep 8, 2013, at 2:15 PM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Marsha to djh:
I'm interested in what we can know and how can we know it. Without dismissing
the idea with some proclamation of 'absolute, amoral, cultural relativism,'
what does it mean when Nagarjuna states that all truth
[djh]
I think Buddhism's relation to the MOQ is nicely summarised by RMP in the
following passage to McWatt:
The MOQ sees the wheel of karma as attached to a cart that is going
somewhere - from quantum forces through inorganic forces and biological
patterns and social patterns to the
On Sep 9, 2013, at 6:44 AM, David Harding da...@goodmetaphysics.com wrote:
[djh]
I think Buddhism's relation to the MOQ is nicely summarised by RMP in the
following passage to McWatt:
The MOQ sees the wheel of karma as attached to a cart that is going
somewhere - from quantum forces
Hi All
I like the concept of common sense in the english language very much.
There is no such concept in the dutch language. When i translate the
concept common sense in the Dutch language it would mean something like ;
using your mind in a healthy way. When I analyse the concept common sense
Marsha to Ron:
Explanations are conventional, and Nagarjuna must use conventional
language and relative truths to teach and point the way to the ultimate
goal, nirvana. In the same way RMP uses convention static patterns to
point the way to Dynamic Quality, the moon. Imho.
Andre:
I beg to
Hi All
André says:
This also means taking responsibility for the views one expresses. Views
(the MoQ shows us) that ought to go beyond the mere 'personal' experiences
of the individual.
Eddo asks;
You mean that the expressed views must represent the conventions of the
authorised institution(who
Andre,
The purpose of writing for a dust cover is quite different than writing a
personal note to a student of the MoQ, one who is working on his MoQ
dissertation. What he wrote to Anthony:
While I am thinking about it there is a very good book on Buddhism recently
out called 'Buddhism,
On 9/7/13 12:56 PM, David Buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
David Thomas said:
...Some time ago, when I first read this book [Jonathan Haidt¹s, ³The
Righteous Mind, Why Good People and Divided by Politics and Religion], in an
exchange with DMB I recommended he read it because I
[Dave]
I come upon you standing over a child beating her unmercifully with a club. My
moral intuition compels me to act to stop you. When I do, you turn the club
towards me and shout, You fucking bum I'm an intellectual, you have no moral
authority to interfere with me unless you can mount an
Hi David B and all,
The structure of metaphysics DQ/SQ differs from a mathematical structure of
logic. Mathematical structure does not support indefinable reality it only
eliminates it. In mathematics DQ/SQ is a nonentity.
Metaphysics has a different approach to logic from physics. Evolution
dmb asked David Thomas:
I'm familiar with Haidt, although I ... don't see any reason why it poses a
challenge to Pirsig's work. It's been a while but I remember thinking that his
explanations for the differences between conservatives and liberals pretty well
supports what Pirsig says,
On 9/9/13 1:17 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
[Arlo]
Marsha is a 'child' in your analogy?
[Dave]
Oops, that's right within the static levels of MoQ all knowledge, all words,
all communications are only analogies. Child,child abuser are only
analogies therefore child abuse under the
dmb says:
... I was especially struck by the author's description of the epistemic
virtues and values that promote the pursuit of knowledge. Like Pirsig, I
think, he doesn't insist on any essential feature but promotes a whole batch of
epistemic virtues and values. The article's list looks
[Arlo previously]
Marsha is a 'child' in your analogy?
[Dave]
Oops, that's right within the static levels of MoQ all knowledge, all words,
all communications are only analogies. Child,child abuser are only
analogies therefore child abuse under the MoQ never happens in reality.
[Arlo]
?? Wow.
[Arlo previously]
Marsha is a 'child' in your analogy?
[Dave]
Oops, that's right within the static levels of MoQ all knowledge, all words,
all communications are only analogies. Child,child abuser are only
analogies therefore child abuse under the MoQ never happens in reality.
[Arlo]
??
What's striking about DT's bizarre mockery is that it actually mocks Marsha's
anti-intellectual nihilism but does not touch the MOQ. Marsha likes to paint
all static knowledge as hypothetical, as illusions, as reifications and
falsifications, as wispy unrealities - but that's exactly what my
17 matches
Mail list logo
