Cheers
Mark
On Sep 16, 2011, at 8:07 PM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Mark,
'I' is a conventional designation.
Maybe you should stick to your 'automatic writing' where you can continue to
impress yourself. I am not interested in your further interpretation.
Marsha
[Mark]
I stick with Piraig's MoQ. It is you who are way out in left field.
[Arlo]
Pirsig's MOQ denies any sensible agent, there self in the MOQ is a set of
value patterns, it is not an autonomous agent that creates value, it is a
response to value. If you feel the need to distort the man's idea
Marsha,
Are you speaking in theory? Your posts definitely suggest that you truly
believe it exists. For example every time you use the pronoun I. It is fine
to deal in theories if they can be substantiated. It is better to post on our
realities if they exist.
I could say that nothing
Mark,
I experience only a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and
impermanent, static patterns of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual
value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality. The 'self' can best be
represented by the tetralemma formulation.
-
Hi Marsha,
When you start out below with I, what are you pointing at?
Your quotes below are interesting, and I have read many similar philosophical
arguments. When you complain about DMV not being consistent that surprises me
since you subscribe to ever changing patterns. I would think that
Mark,
'I' is a conventional designation.
Maybe you should stick to your 'automatic writing' where you can continue to
impress yourself. I am not interested in your further interpretation.
Marsha
On Sep 16, 2011, at 10:32 PM, 118 wrote:
Hi Marsha,
When you start out below with
[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
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
[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
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
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
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
Pirsig said: But the MOQ can argue that free will exists at all levels with
increasing freedom to make choices as one ascends the levels.
Steve replied:
I posted that quote months ago and am well aware of it. ...It is certainly not
the logical and necessary basis for moral responsibility
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 valuing?
Pirsig's response to Bodvar: This is a subtle slip back into
subject-object
Andre quoted Pirsig on free will in the MOQ (from Lila's Child):
Hugo:
In my view, free will is a term that can only be used of self-conscious
(self reflective) creatures. Will is a term we may use of any organism- of
any autonomous entity- describing the goal involved in autonomy. And free
Hi dmb,
Pirsig's response:
Traditionally, this is the meaning of free will. But the MOQ can argue that
free will exists at all levels with increasing freedom to make choices as one
ascends the levels. At the lowest inorganic level, the freedom is so small
that it can be said that nature
Steve said to dmb:
You seemed to have missed the quotes that add something interesting...
dmb says:
No, I didn't miss those quotes. I merely focused on one particular quote, the
one that utterly defeats your position. Naturally, you breezed right past my
actual without any apparent
Steve:
If the individual is a figure of speech, then talking about the
individual making choices is a figure of speech about a figure of
speech. At no point does it begin to make any MOQ sense to say that
the individual possesses or does not possess free will. We literally
are our value choices.
Hello Steve,
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:40 PM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Steve:
If the individual is a figure of speech, then talking about the
individual making choices is a figure of speech about a figure of
speech. At no point does it begin to make any MOQ sense to say that
the
21 matches
Mail list logo
