[MD] Speed of Lighting, Roar of thunder...

[MarshaV]

On Aug 22, 2010, at 12:51 PM, David Thomas wrote:

> On 8/22/10 10:08 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> Patterns existing "outside our concepts of them" seems to make it a SOM
>>>> issue,
>>>> but I could be wrong.  Do patterns exist as independent entities?
>>> [Dave]
>>> Depends. If you want to looked at them universally then, no. All patterns
>>> are parts of smaller and larger patterns such that ultimately all is one.
>>> 
>>> But this is not very helpful idea when trying to make breakfast.
>> Marsha
>> I don't know about you, buy I don't metaphysically scramble eggs.
>> I just fix them.
>> 
>>> [Dave]
>>> The belief  that supping on the concept of a egg is the same as dining on
>>> "independent entity" egg in your refrigerator, will eventually will lead to
>>> the
>>> demise of the pattern Marsha.
>> Marsha
>> I fix eggs, chop wood and carry water.
>> 
>>> [Dave]
>>> Pragmatism would say, "Yes, that it is reasonable thing
>>> to believe their really is an "outside world out there" until a better way
>>> of understanding that experience comes along."
>> Marsha
>> I don't even make a determination if an egg is pragmatically
>> believable, or not, while I am preparing one.
>> 
>>> [Dave]
>>> But there hasn't been one to date. It leaves open the possibility
>>> that all is illusion, but suggests it would not be prudent to act as
>>> if this is true.
>> Marsha
>> While discussing the MoQ, it is most appropriate to question the nature
>> static patterns of value.  If static patterns of value present all that can
>> be conceptualized, where 'outside our concepts' do they exist?
>> 
> [Dave]
> Most of what you say above is parroting "Zen Talk." Prior to being to
> exposed to it, however you where, in the context of the question you asked
> and my response, you would have considered this affected babble. I still do.

Marsha:
This is one way not to answer the question.  It is a bunch of projection based 
on nothing.  Nothing!   


> 
>> Marsha
>> seems to make it a SOM issue,
> 
> [Dave]
> What you really would like to have said was, "SOL issue." Given your longing
> for and belief in Bo's ideas yes this is an "issue" for you. Pirsig claims
> the MoQ is perfectly compatible with scientific realism.

As long as you remember it's just an idea.  


> You know, like the idea that world will keep going around without you, or
> me, or  concepts like patterns of quality.

What do you know and how do you know it are legitimate metaphysical 
questions?   


> 
> A while back I caught a brief clip of the Dali Lama in an interview where
> the reporter ask him about Buddhism's denial of self. The glint in his eyes
> and the gruffness in his voice said more than his words. He said something
> to the effect,  Who is the stupid ass who claims this. What do you change if
> you do not change yourself. I would have loved to seen the look on the
> reporter's face. A real life version of the ending to the whole series of
> guru on the mountaintop jokes.

Marsha:
The Dalai Lama said something 'to the effect'???    'In effect' is not something the 
Dalai Lama said?   What a dramatic technique to say nothing!   

The 'self' hasn't even been mentioned in this post, so what is this response?  A 
projection, or diversion?  

As a metaphysical topic, it is very appropriate to question the nature of 
static patterns of value.  You know, metaphysics?  Like in Metaphysics of 
Quality.












 
___