David M to Andre:
Yes the intellectual views of SOM stop us seeing what quality really is,
in the MOQ there is no such problem, I have no idea what you think you
are challenging in what I said.
Andre:
I was 'challenging' your use of 'pre-cultural SQ', cultural-SQ etc. It
seems to me that
DMB said to David Morey:
You refuse to deal with the evidence honestly and in fact you barely even
acknowledge the evidence. I don't know where you got the idea that
undifferentiated experience means blankness or white noise or a lack of
content but that's wrong and that's what has you so
Andre:
Do you believe that the atomic bombs that dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki were illusory?
Marsha:
They were/are as conventionally real, as real as rocks and trees.
Andre:
I am not familiar with Pirsig's use of the 'conventionally real' phrase
in the MoQ. Basically the MoQ consists of
Andre,
On Oct 14, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:
Marsha to Andre:
The static world is not an illusion, the static world is like an illusion.
All conditioned dharmas
Are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows,
Like dew drops and a lightning flash.
DQ/SQ metaphysics! S/O metaphysics! I experience the indefinable! I can
discuss an indefinable in terms of existence. What can it possibly mean to
experience an indefinable? Evolution holds the key, this indefinable/that
definable, the other thing metaphysics.
Joe
On 10/12/13 2:23 AM,
Hi Joe,
On Oct 14, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote:
DQ/SQ metaphysics! S/O metaphysics! I experience the indefinable! I can
discuss an indefinable in terms of existence. What can it possibly mean to
experience an indefinable?
Marsha:
Turn off the projector and be aware of
Dmb said:
How would it be possible to offer a better answer?
DM: By actually giving some answers to my questions, by having a conversation
rather than cutting and pasting from your scrap book.
DMB: If a mountain of textual evidence doesn't answer your objections, then
what would?
DM: If
Marsha to Andre:
Change the term from 'conventional' to the term 'conditional', and see
if that helps. Have you read the MoQ Textbook?
Andre:
Ah, you're in the Lucy mode again: my question still stands:
'Do you believe that the atomic bombs that dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki were
Andre,
On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Andre Broersen andrebroer...@gmail.com wrote:
Marsha to Andre:
Change the term from 'conventional' to the term 'conditional', and see if
that helps. Have you read the MoQ Textbook?
Andre:
Ah, you're in the Lucy mode again: my question still stands:
DM to dmb:
'I can't see any benefit in me setting out how I understand what James,
Pirsig, Northrop are saying because I am arguing that what they appear to be
saying in certain specific ways is wrong or confusing,...
Andre:
Isn't that reason enough to check for yourself David the
dmb said:
How would it be possible to offer a better answer? If a mountain of textual
evidence doesn't answer your objections, then what would?
DM replied:
By actually giving some answers to my questions, by having a conversation
rather than cutting and pasting from your scrap book. If you
Hi MarshaV and All,
In metaphysics an indefinable is a turn off. A definable is a turn on. And
here we go round the mulberry bush.
Joe
On 10/14/13 11:37 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hi Joe,
On Oct 14, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote:
DQ/SQ metaphysics! S/O
dmb,
You didn't offer a mountain of textual evidence, you presented a mountain of
text.
Marsha
On Oct 14, 2013, at 4:12 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
dmb said:
How would it be possible to offer a better answer? If a mountain of textual
evidence
Marsha said to Andre:
The static world is not an illusion, the static world is like an illusion. They
[the atomic bombs that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki] were/are as
conventionally real, as real as rocks and trees.
Andre said to Marsha:
Ah, you're in the Lucy mode again: my question
Lucy said to dmb,
You didn't offer a mountain of textual evidence, you presented a mountain of
text.
dmb simply repeats what he already said:
The problem is that you cannot read this evidence for yourself. You do not
understand how the evidence counts as a responsible answer because you
dmb,
All the text you have presented is analogy as you know: Everything is an
analogy.You've given no reason or proof that establishes the mountain of
text as evidence for any argument in particular. You stating that the
evidence is mounting doesn't make it mount to support your case.
16 matches
Mail list logo
