Hi X Acto and All,
DQ/SQ! When can the intellect acknowledge reality as indefinable?
Metaphysics endorses indefinable/definable reality DQ/SQ. The concept of
intellect alone is inadequate to validate DQ as indefinable. IMHO A baby's
learning curve starts with suckling, crying, and other
(Adrie)
-
Not this, not that!!!
[Ron]
I remember being here with Dan, and he employed the same statement in this
situation. And in the same
inflammitory manner.
This has been a problem.
Because if we adopt this statement as true in regard what Bob means about
dynamic
Hi MarshaV and All,
IMHO The soundness of a premise follows its relationship in evolution. In a
DQ/SQ acceptance for reality some relationships in existence are
indefinable. I accept evolution as the measure of indefinable/definable
reality. I guess that makes evolution a supreme reality.
Joe
Ron,
You improve the human situation not with WHY's and HOW's but with maintaining
a good and open heart. (Remember: head, hand *heart*) Imho. - Betterness
is relative. Some types of conventional betterness might be based on how well
an experience agrees with ones most cherished
[djh]
However; logic isn't common sense. Logic is its own distinct intellectual
thing which follows its own rules regardless of the fact that it is built
out of the mythos. Furthermore, it's not a question of formal logic vs
common sense. You've done a philosophical logic 101 class.
On Sep 14, 2013, at 5:12 AM, David Harding da...@goodmetaphysics.com wrote:
[djh]
However; logic isn't common sense. Logic is its own distinct
intellectual thing which follows its own rules regardless of the fact
that it is built out of the mythos. Furthermore, it's not a question of
By the way, I had the logic class at UCONN (Go Huskies!!!); it was titled
Symbolic Logic, and it was a 200-level course. It was the same class taken
by graduate students, but they were given addition problems on their final
exam. And while it may not have turned me into a Master Logician,
David,
On Sep 14, 2013, at 10:50 AM, David Harding da...@goodmetaphysics.com wrote:
And hypotheticals are thus good ideas(truths) which we are yet to test.
Or good ideas that one continues to test.
Marsha
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
[Ron]
What drives evolution is not this, not that.
[Arlo]
Marsha's neti neti is another way of saying undefined. No one disputes
this. No one has said Dynamic Quality is definable. In this sense, even
Dynamic Quality (as a name) is problematic. Consider, what value the modifier
Dynamic
Marsha:
You improve the human situation not with WHY's and HOW's but with maintaining
a good and open heart. (Remember: head, hand *heart*) Imho. - Betterness
is relative. Some types of conventional betterness might be based on how well
an experience agrees with ones most cherished
[Ron]
My thoughts too,when the concept of neti-neti essentialy nullifies experience
as less than or limited the risk is developing the appearence-reality problem
again.
[Arlo]
Right, and all sorts of other problems surrounding the
nihilism/anti-intellectualism/relativism/subjectivism morass.
Ron,
On Sep 12, 2013, at 9:12 PM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
From LILA:
Quality was value.
Marsha says:
2. Value judgements, like *right or wrong* and *better or worse* do not apply
to Dynamic Quality.
... my statement that Dynamic Quality is always affirmative was not a wise
Marsha:
Sorry there seems to be too many hidden assumptions left out of your post for
me to make sense of it. The only thing I might offer to negate the charge of
nihilism is that static quality is not annihilated. Static quality is
conventionally real.
[Ron]
But it neglects the
On Sep 13, 2013, at 8:23 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Marsha:
Sorry there seems to be too many hidden assumptions left out of your post for
me to make sense of it. The only thing I might offer to negate the charge of
nihilism is that static quality is not annihilated.
(... the last post was sent in error, please ignore.)
Ron,
On Sep 13, 2013, at 8:23 AM, X Acto xa...@rocketmail.com wrote:
Perhaps you can explain how not this-not that fits together to explain
beauty and attraction and why some things are better than others. Because I
can't seem to see
Hi Ron and All,
Emotional level indefinable. Intellectual level DQ/SQ.
Evolution is useful when describing different levels in existence. There is
a hierarchy used when describing action and thought. Evolution defines the
dynamic reality of that hierarchy DQ/SQ.
Joe
On 9/12/13 6:12 PM, X
[Ron]
What drives evolution is not this, not that.
[Arlo]
Marsha's neti neti is another way of saying undefined. No one disputes
this. No one has said Dynamic Quality is definable. In this sense, even
Dynamic Quality (as a name) is problematic. Consider, what value the modifier
Dynamic could
Marsha,
It's a valid question and one that leads from what you've said previously.
Ron has raised a very valid point in response to a statement from you
and now you are being dismissive and evasive.
In case you hadn't noticed this is a _discussion_ forum (moq_discuss -
it's a clue!) and not
Hi Horse,
My original statement was extracted from a paragraph from a response to djh. I
reworded the sentence to make it clearer and related it to a statement made by
RMP. Nowhere was there any reference beauty or why some things are better than
others in my sentence or RMP's quote. As
From LILA:
Their overall subject he called a 'Metaphysics of Quality,' or sometimes a
'Metaphysics of Value,' or sometimes just 'MOQ' to save time.
And Phaedrus knew something about values. Before he had gone up into the
mountains he had written a whole book on values. Quality. Quality was
[djh]
Logic has its valuable use beyond our own personal experience and can
point to us things which are valuable which we might not have
experienced otherwise. This is why logic on this discussion board is
good. This is why explaining things and talking through things on
this
David,
On Sep 12, 2013, at 9:05 AM, David Harding da...@goodmetaphysics.com wrote:
[djh]
Logic has its valuable use beyond our own personal experience and can
point to us things which are valuable which we might not have
experienced otherwise. This is why logic on this discussion board
Hi MarshaV and All,
The brain is a house of logic, meaning in words. Logos/Logic. How can we
know to emphasize words in creating consistent logic? Our environment and
training through encouragement by parents, help meaning. The brain is
sensitized early by language to meaning in words,
From LILA:
Quality was value.
Marsha says:
2. Value judgements, like *right or wrong* and *better or worse* do not apply
to Dynamic Quality.
... my statement that Dynamic Quality is always affirmative was not a wise
statement, since it constitutes a limitation or partial definition of
[djh]
I'm not saying to stop meditating. I'm just saying that Buddhism is not
about making things better as 'in the sixth Century B.C. there was no sign
of evolutionary progress[or improvement over time], and Buddhism,
accordingly, does not pay attention to it.' As a result of waking
Marsha said to dmb,
If I am to address your complaint I will need a little more information.
Please specify your exact complaint with each statement. And please explain to
which of the statements each quote that you've provided applies, and exactly
how it specifically justifies your
Adrie.
Well,no, i disagree.Pirsig talks about his own life expiriences, and
derives insights along that proces.Philosophy is thinking and talking about
life.I do think the problem some have with socializing too much,is that
there is a big chance to derail from philosophy towards
a social
dmb,
I don't see any contradiction anywhere. And since you could not address the
specifics of your complaints, I have no way to relate to them. You seem to
come to conclusion that no way relate to my understanding. I'll leave it that.
Marsha
On Sep 11, 2013, at 10:14 AM, david
David,
On Sep 11, 2013, at 10:00 AM, David Harding da...@goodmetaphysics.com wrote:
[djh]
Logic has its valuable use beyond our own personal experience and can
point to us things which are valuable which we might not have
experienced otherwise. This is why logic on this discussion board
Hi MarshaV and All,
Logic and instinct are functions. Logos formats the brain's experience in
sentient communication. Instinct and logos follow differing formats in
reality, definable instinct and free will. And I seem to be going round and
round in circles.
Joe
On 9/11/13 10:46 AM,
[Marsha]
2. From a Dynamic Quality (unpatterened) view nothing is right or wrong,
better or worse.
[DMB]
Claim #2 describes the relativism of SOM, not the MOQ.
[Arlo adds]
Right. The language here is problematic as well. 'Views' are what we have after
we select sand from the endless
Marsha said:
1. I accept the MoQ's idea that the world is nothing but value.
2. From a Dynamic Quality (unpatterened) view nothing is right or wrong,
better or worse.
DMB objected:
Claim #1 is contradicted by claim #2 claim #2 describes the relativism of
SOM, not the MOQ.
Arlo added:
dmb,
1. I accept the MoQ's idea that the world is nothing but value.
The Metaphysics of Quality's central idea that the world is nothing but value
is not part of any philosophic tradition that I know of.
- RMP
Marsha:
There is nothing wrong with the wording of my statement.
[DMB]
As with the hot stove example, this undefined value can be positive or
negative. Betterness works in both directions, away from the negative or toward
the positive.
[Arlo]
I might be splitting hairs, but I see this coming into play as a response to
DQ, what I was getting at with
[djh]
From wiki
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Paths_to_liberation#Noble_Eightfold_Path)
The most notable of these descriptions is the Noble Eightfold Path, which
was presented in the first discourse of the Buddha and is considered the
essence of the Buddhist path (magga). The
David,
On Sep 10, 2013, at 7:57 AM, David Harding da...@goodmetaphysics.com wrote:
[djh]
From wiki
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Paths_to_liberation#Noble_Eightfold_Path)
The most notable of these descriptions is the Noble Eightfold Path, which
was presented in the first
Hi DMB and All,
Imho you are wrestling with elephants! Good luck!
In SOM there is no evolution, reality is SO. The first adjective modifying
reality is quality followed by the second adjective quantity, time, place,
etc.
Moq proposes Quality as metaphysical reality in existence. Evolution
Marsha said to djh:
I accept the MoQ's idea that the world is nothing but value. From a Dynamic
Quality (unpatterened) view nothing is right or wrong, better or worse. From
the static (patterned) view a pattern exist because it is useful. I also
accept that on the static (conventional)
dmb,
If I am to address your complaint I will need a little more information.
Please specify your exact complaint with each statement. And please explain to
which of the statements each quote that you've provided applies, and exactly
how it specifically justifies your compliant.
Marsha
(Adrie)
2. From a Dynamic Quality (unpatterened) view nothing is right or wrong,
better or worse.(Marsha)
One of the biggest mistakes of bhuddism, is to take indifference as a
perspective, a horizon to travel towards.
2013/9/11 MarshaV val...@att.net
dmb,
If I am to address your
Andie,
The statement has nothing to do with Buddhism, or traveling towards, or a
perspective, or indifference. What can one say of the unpatterned, the
undifferentiated? The fearful may project it as hell or chaos; the optimistic
may project it as heaven or bliss. All goodness, because it
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,
[Marsha]
I prefer to keep discussions very simple and *try* to probe deeper. Is this
a problem?
[djh]
No, that's fine. But I'll be sure to respond to only certain points of yours in
the future to avoid wasting time now that I know this is your preferred
approach.
[Marsha]
Is there no
David,
On Sep 8, 2013, at 5:30 AM, David Harding da...@goodmetaphysics.com wrote:
[Marsha]
I prefer to keep discussions very simple and *try* to probe deeper. Is this
a problem?
[djh]
No, that's fine. But I'll be sure to respond to only certain points of yours
in the future to avoid
Marsha said 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 is relative
and conventional? If Buddhism's conventional truth
Marsha:
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 is relative
and conventional? If Buddhism's conventional truth in some
Marsha:
RMP has said that Truth is not supposed to be determined by social
popularity. So then, by what zero-point or specific standards are logical
consistency and economy of explanation to be determined?
[Ron]
You answered your own question with:
But yes, it is all about what we
On Sep 7, 2013, at 1:52 AM, David Harding da...@goodmetaphysics.com wrote:
Do you have a specific question to ask?
I have two general questions for you Marsha, with specific components:
1 - Is the only thing to learn in life the fact that all things arise from
Dynamic Quality?
*Only*
[Marsha]
Discussion? Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. This isn't a debate club.
Sometimes it depends on the style of the questioner/questions? For instance,
I don't consider one should have to defend oneself against being called a
bad mystic or an anti-intellectual. And a
djh,
On Sep 7, 2013, at 6:26 AM, David Harding da...@goodmetaphysics.com wrote:
[Marsha]
Discussion? Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. This isn't a debate club.
Sometimes it depends on the style of the questioner/questions? For
instance, I don't consider one should have to defend
[Marsha]
Discussion? Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. This isn't a debate
club. Sometimes it depends on the style of the questioner/questions? For
instance, I don't consider one should have to defend oneself against being
called a bad mystic or an anti-intellectual. And a
David,
On Sep 7, 2013, at 9:54 AM, David Harding da...@goodmetaphysics.com wrote:
[Marsha]
Discussion? Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. This isn't a debate
club. Sometimes it depends on the style of the questioner/questions? For
instance, I don't consider one should have to defend
[djh]
How else can our values 'interconnect' if we do not work through our
differences by trying to understand one another and how our values are
different?
[Marsha]
You seem to be steeped in presuppositions. I am again working through my
value with Nagarjuna's MMK (through J.
David,
On Sep 7, 2013, at 10:14 PM, David Harding da...@goodmetaphysics.com wrote:
This has resulted in arguments and disagreements and name calling and all the
rest of it because if we presume that we're all here for the same thing and
we actually are here for very different reasons, with
Marsha,
This has resulted in arguments and disagreements and name calling and all
the rest of it because if we presume that we're all here for the same thing
and we actually are here for very different reasons, with very different
values and intentions, then disharmony results. And this
David,
On Sep 8, 2013, at 12:49 AM, David Harding da...@goodmetaphysics.com wrote:
Marsha,
This has resulted in arguments and disagreements and name calling and all
the rest of it because if we presume that we're all here for the same thing
and we actually are here for very different
Do you have a specific question to ask?
I have two general questions for you Marsha, with specific components:
1 - Is the only thing to learn in life the fact that all things arise from
Dynamic Quality? Is that the only great insight we can find? Or is there more
to life than that?
2 - Can
64 matches
Mail list logo
