[MD] Is it serious?

[MarshaV]

First, to all of you who have served in the U. S. Armed 
Forces:   Thank you!!!


Greetings Ham,

Your post has some interesting questions, and the answers will take 
more time than I have available at the moment, since I'm on my way 
out the door.  Hopefully, it will be acceptable if I reply on 
Tuesday.  Have a nice holiday weekend.

Marsha






At 03:52 AM 5/23/2009, you wrote:

>Hello, Marsha --
>
>
>>I have always had trouble following your unique metaphysical language.
>
>That doesn't surprise me.  Describing a concept that isn't common to 
>experience requires uncommon terms.  However, this needn't be an 
>obstacle if the terms are defined, (and I do provide a glossary).
>
>>At 03:03 PM 5/20/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>[skipping to the "troublesome" statement]
>>
>>>Pirsigians like to talk philosophy by splitting hairs.  They're 
>>>not content to accept existence for what it is -- a self/other 
>>>duality, so they've replaced duality with a tetrology of levels.
>
>>What do you mean by "accept existence for what it is"?  Human 
>>beings once perceived the world to be flat, were they correct?  I 
>>think your complaints in the above paragraph are
>>humorous considering the esoteric and confusing language
>>you use when presenting your Essence.  Ever-changing,
>>interrelated and interconnected static patterns of value is
>>what we have to work with, not things-in-themselves.
>
>Was the world flat when they perceived it to be flat?  Actually, 
>they didn't perceive flatness, they deduced it.  I don't perceive 
>that Marsha is a "thinking self" like me, I assume it.  I do 
>perceive the world as an "other" to my thinking self.  That is a 
>self-evident fact to me, and I presume for you, also. You may call 
>it an "illusion", but it as an illusion of the existence you and I 
>share.  "Static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality" is 
>incomprehensible language to me.
>
>>Yes, Ham, I agree with you that Difference is necessary.  Viva la 
>>Difference!  It is the mistake of thinking that these
>>differences are somehow real instead of a convenience
>>evolved for survival.  This misunderstanding seems to be
>>a maladaptation and the cause of much suffering.
>
>I would say anything that is necessary for my survival is more than 
>a "convenience."  It must be pretty "real", even if my life is an 
>illusion. If I thought food was a mere convenience rather than a 
>necessity, that misconception would indeed cause me much suffering.
>
>>I am considering your description of Sensibility and Being.  They 
>>do seem to be two functions of the self, the five senses
>>as sensual, and thought as becoming.  It's the becoming that is
>>the troublesome ego which confuses itself (spov) for Reality.
>
>Calling your self an "spov for Reality" is playing games with 
>language.  All of existence is "becoming" from the individual's 
>perspective.  "Ego" is a psychological construct that has more to do 
>with one's attitude or drive than with selfness.  These word games 
>are an easy way to skirt around the concept of proprietary awareness 
>and avoid referring to the subjective "self" which defines 
>it.  Playing "Pirsig says" with words is using a kind of dialectical 
>Newspeak that enables you to forget the world you actually experience.
>
>>Neither my view, nor your view, nor RMP's view is Absolute Truth, 
>>and there is beauty in knowing that, don't you think?
>
>There is beauty in poetry, music, art, and nature.  But you're 
>saying there's beauty in not knowing the truth.  Inasmuch as my 
>quest is for Truth, I don't find ignorance beautiful.
>
>>My relative opinion, though, is that the MOQ is a wonderful
>>step-forward world-view that brings together and East and West,
>>feminine & masculine, this and that, to point to an elegant and better way.
>
>It's a poetic thought, Marsha.  But, aside from the fact that it 
>makes you feel good, what evidence do you have that thinking and 
>talking this way is "better" than logic, deduction, or metaphysical 
>intuition?  People who make "feeling good" their life goal generally 
>wind up uninformed, overspent, and dependent.  (They make good 
>left-wing liberals, though.)
>
>>No Ham, you haven't given me any idea what you think is real about 
>>the self.  Where or what is this individuated agent other than Quality?
>
>Beingness, selfness, and thought can be individuated.  However, I 
>can't conceive of an individuated Quality.  Can you?  Sensibility 
>(proprietary awareness) is the essential self, not Quality.
>
>Best wishes,
>Ham
>
>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/


.
_____________

The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and 
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, 
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.

.
.