[MD] Uncertainty

[markhsmit]

Hi Bo,
My apologies if I offended, that was not my intent.  My intent
was to receive a response.  I can be more civil, as I should be.

I would disagree that all is experience, but that is a topic for
another post.  We believe that a more complex explanation
somehow makes it more real.  The world of Gods and Goddesses
is much more useful than believing in a ball of flame in sky.
A shame that some consider the addition of a bunch of 
nouns to a symbol to be a better explanation.

Objectification is just that.  Whether it is through physics or
metaphysics.  All rational thought is based on assumptions
which them build a bubble of reality.  No bubble is more real.

I don't mean that one cannot escape language, I mean that
one cannot escape experience.  A language is an experience
in the same way that Quality is.  We can create an overriding 
symbol for all and call it quality or reality or whatever to create 
a system which explains.  But it seems to me to be all circular
tautologies.  Perhaps I have more to learn.

In terms of DQ/SQ, it can be argued that all is DQ.  Things
may appear as SQ, but everything only exists in the moment.
Our memories seem to create static presence, however,
even those memories exist only in the moment.

I was not convince by this static dynamic split in Lila,
but I am still working on grasping it, if only to move on.

Cheers,
Willblake2

On Sep 21, 2009, at 2:06:28 AM, skutvik at online.no wrote:
From:   skutvik at online.no
Subject:    Re: [MD] Uncertainty
Date:   September 21, 2009 2:06:28 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Hi Mark, Will, Blake or Smith

20 Sep. you wrote

> This notion of quality being undefinable and only an experience is all
> a bunch of semantic nonsense!

If you are to criticize the MOQ you can't just pick one post, particularly 
not from Joe Maurer who may be the gentlest of men, but his grasp of 
the MOQ ... ?? 

> Like the rule not to worship idols.  You have to worship the real
> thing...

????

> A definition is an experience!  Where do you draw the line at what is
> experience and what isn't?  Reading these posts is an experience. 

You are right, all is experience, but it's strained through metaphysical 
filters and the Q-levels have been filters while top notch . When cave 
mankind looked on the night sky their "social metaphysics" made them 
see gods and goddesses wile "intellectual metaphysics" (SOM) makes 
us see stars and planets, which is a better explanation. The MOQ 
makes us - by a superhuman effort - see raw experience which is 
filtered by the static levels. 

> When I think of the definition of water, that is an experience.    
> Show me some definition that is not an experience. Labeling something
> as undefinable is a definition, and that definition is an experience.

The MOQ postulates a dynamic and a static aspect to "experience". 
The term "dynamic" indicates in-definability - full stop - to think, speak 
or write isn't definition. What you mean is that one can't escape 
language and that's right. 

> When you define Quality,  that is an experience. 

To say that something is indefinable isn't a definition. You look caught 
in the experience/definition fallacy you (correctly) protest below. 

> Dividing reality up into definitions and experience is pure nonsense
> and doesn't lead anywhere.  It is phantom reasoning through semantics. 

Except for "dividing reality ... etc." (it's a "Reality/Definitions" divide) 
you have put your finger on a big bone of contention, namely if MOQ's 
fundamental split is (the above) "Reality/Definition" ("Quality/Concepts" 
as we know the bone as *) or DQ/SQ.

*) From the preliminaries we know that Quality=Reality.

Bodvar.







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/