[MD] Reading & Incomprehension

[MarshaV]

On Jun 8, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Krimel wrote:

> [Bo]
> Tell me the thick-headed the explanatory force of declaring Reality = X 
> without the X having some "creation", "fall-out" or "expression"? As not 
> to give you a chance to escape out on some tangent I limit myself  to 
> this issue.  
> 
> [Krimel]
> Ok, the Pollyanna in me is forcing me to respond but she really hurt my arm.
> 
> Reality=X in the language of pseudo-math could only mean that Reality is
> undefined. Whatever we say about it misses something and perhaps something
> important. 

Marsha:
There is something paradoxical when speaking in a subject/object language and 
all that it projects, primarily an separate object.  Maybe it is best to leave the word 
'reality' for the Subject/Object Metaphysics, where Reality = subjects and objects.  
The Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ) then represents Quality(unpatterned experience/
patterned experience).  It is easier to live it than to talk about it!


> Marsha seems to get this with her frequent "not this, not that" mantra but I
> think that misses the point as well. It isn't not "not this, not that"
> either. Sometimes it really is this or that or close enough for government
> work or at least good enough to talk about in those terms.

Like those double negatives, do you?  I do.  -  In the Oxford dvd, RMP points 
to the Veda's equivalent definition of Quality/DQ being 'not this, not that'.  I have
read, too, that the only way to _approach_  Quality/UltimateTruth is by realizing 
something is false.  Either way these statements seem to be pointing to 
understanding beyond the static quality/conventional reality.  

Statically/conventionally I can accept, even embrace, ever-changing, 
interdependent, relative, impermanent patterns.  I just don't want to be 
fooled by them.   


> Reality in the Capital R sense isn't just undefined it is utterly
> meaningless. Meaning is something we humans make out of Reality.
> Marsha and the dmb AWGIs kind of get this but seem to think it suggests
> that there is no reality at all.

I doubt that dmb would deny that we are static quality.  And I wouldn't deny that
we are static quality or, from a Buddhist pov, existing in a conventional/relative 
reality.  


> That is not the way I understand either the MoQ or
> Buddhism for that matter.

I will not deny static patterns or conventional reality.   


> We decide for ourselves what Reality equals and what "qualities" it possesses.

We?  Decide?  Ourselves?  I cannot agree with this sentence.  It sounds 
delusional.   


> Pirsig, the way I read him, is saying that the best way to begin constructing
> meaning is to look for patterns. 

Didn't he say that rather than Lila having Quality, that Quality had Lila.  Given this,
I don't know how to interpret this. 


Marsha

p.s.  I don't like you programming/computer metaphor.  I left that behind many moons 
ago along with the clock/machine metaphor, I've move on to the entanglement analogy 
sprinkled with a heavy dose of uncertainty principle.



 
___