[MD] The Greeks?

[Mary]

Hi Matt,

> 
> Mary said:
> The levels are but a representation of reality.  Given a
> choice, would you prefer to access the representation or
> the thing represented?
> 
> Matt:
> This is what I would call a fake choice, between a
> representation and a thing-in-itself.  If that were a real
> choice, who wouldn't rather have the thing itself?  But
> philosophy since Descartes and Locke, two people largely
> responsible for imposing the "representational mind"
> between us and reality (though Kant locked it all into
> place), hasn't been able to say practically what it means
> to get to the thing-in-itself.
> 
> So, given a choice, I punch the dilemma between the
> horns, throw sand in its eyes, and scurry out of the arena.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Yeah, poor choice of words.  I have almost exactly 2 minutes to respond
right now before I am late for something, so let me just say quickly that
the "thing represented" I was referring to was not an objective reality, but
Dynamic Quality, or more precisely, an acknowledgement that DQ is available
and underlies all, since as we all have had pointed out to us by the MoQ,
there is no objective reality.
 
> Marsha said:
> I love the opposite-from-non-x , such as
> opposite-from-non-justice or opposite-from-non-copper, or
> opposite-from-non-zebra, or even opposite-from-non-father,
> as a representation of a pattern.  So many attributes of
> 'thingness' seem to disappear with its use.  Maybe it may be
> useful as a model.
> 
> Matt:
> Aye, it's a good way to get the hang of potentially infinite
> number of things one can say about any particular "thing,"
> which leads one to think there is no essence to that thing,
> just a multiplicity of ways of looking at all dependent on
> what you want it for.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Exactly so.  A very good explication.

Best,
Mary