[MD] The MOQ and religions.

[MarshaV]

HI Dan,

This RMP reply sounds like a 'yes, no and all of the above' type of
 answer, one I cannot help but admire.   What do you think?


Marsha



On Dec 28, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Dan Glover wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:35 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Good morning Marsha,
>> 
>> John earlier:
>> 
>>> Experience can't be what you describe, either unpatterned or without
>>>> staticity.  The very defining of experience requires a static pattern in
>>>> order to be experienced.  The idea of "before" is itself a static pattern
>>> of
>>>> existence relative to time and obviates the pure nullity you postulate,
>>> imo.
>>> 
>>> Marsha:
>>> I did not define unpatterned experience because such an experience cannot
>>> be bound by words, and I certainly did not use the word 'before'.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Well you don't have to use the word if you imply it, and otherwise it seems
>> sorta nonsensical, so I do some construing there.
>> 
>> This could be quite a challenge, dialectically speaking, you say something
>> that doesn't make sense to me, and I say to you , that doesn't make sense to
>> me and then you reply it's not supposed to make sense because its impossible
>> to make sense.
>> 
>> To which I reply, "oh.  Ok."
>> 
>> 
>>  But "unpatterened experience" is far worse because its a
>>>> philosophical self-contradiction.
>>>> 
>>>> A metaphysics no-no.
>>> 
>>> Marsha:
>>> Is it a philosophical self-contradiction in the same way as seeing orange
>>>  or blue?  If not,  than how is it a philosophical self-contradiction?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> It's a contradiction because experience is  a patterning.  Thus you can't
>> have "unpatterned patterning" in a philosophically logical way.  Not unless
>> you want to do some explaining of yourself young lady!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> But if you think  the words you use are false, then I have to wonder why
>>> you
>>>> use them?
>>> 
>>> Marsha:
>>> Words are static patterns of value.  Value has me.
>>> 
>>> 
>> Ah, well that clears it up nicely.
> 
> Hi Marsha and John
> 
> During work on the LC project, I had the opportunity to ask Robert
> Pirsig about what you seem to be discussing here...
> 
> "DG:
> ...how experience can
> be synonymous with Dynamic Quality? Isn’t experience that which we define?"
> 
> "RMP:
> Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone.
> Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic
> Quality. But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and
> no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly that
> Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because
> definition never exhausts it." (LILA'S CHILD)
> 
> Does that help?
> 
> Dan
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>>  Isn't the idea of words that we use them  for truth?
>>> 
>>> Marsha:
>>> Value creates 'we'.
>>> 
>>> 
>> Only if it's in the mood.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I mean, we know when we shoot for the moon we'll miss, but at least it
>>>> provides a big fat aim point.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha:
>>> Experience is experience is experience.
>>> 
>>> 
>> Succinctly, redundantly tautological.
>> 
>> Catchy, but nonsensical.
>> 
>> I can hum the tune, but I doubt anybody'd dance to it.  Try taking some
>> lessons from Ron.
>> 
>> John, tapping his toes.
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

  
_______________________________________________________________________
   
Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...