[MD] Hot stoves and those who sit on them

[MarshaV]

Hi John

On Mar 31, 2010, at 11:52 AM, John Carl wrote:

> Good Morning Marsha,
> 
> It's snowing!  Fairly rare for here.  Enough to notice anyway...


What elevation are you above sea level?  



> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:55 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> I want to make one point is that according to the MoQ, "Reality" is just
>> as
>>> undefinable as Quality, eh?
>> 
>> Yes.  Reality=Quality, and from my experience Quality is unpatterned
>> experience
>> and patterned experience.
>> 
>  
> Patterned plus unpatterned pretty much covers everything, I'd say.  But
> isn't there something special about the term Quality, which implies a
> transcendance over mere "reality".  I mean, if it's just a word for Reality,
> then why bother?  Call ourselves "Metaphysicians of Reality",  and call it a
> day.

Yes, no and all of the above!  Can't see how to answer your question in 
a logical way:

"Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable in the sense that there is a 
knower and a known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things. A 
metaphysics must be divisible, definable and knowable, or there isn't any 
metaphysics. Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition 
and since Quality is essentially outside definition, this means that a 
'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity."
   (LILA,Chapter 5)

Did I mention that I accept paradox.  That is, of course, if there was an I and a 
separate thing labeled 'paradox'.  

I'm not sure what kind of answer you are expecting?  If I were a Buddhist scholar, maybe 
the word wouldn't seem special at all.  When I first read ZMM, I had moved from the 
frustrations of Eastern (Raja yoga) philosophy to the frustrations of Western philosophy, 
and at that point Quality seemed the most perfect word and explanation I could imagine.  

Maybe you should explain to me what you think makes the word 'Quality' special.  



>>> So don't make an ambiguous assumption on the meaning of reality in that
>>> SOM definition and equate it with what the MoQ is saying about Reality.
>> 
>> I'm not clearly understanding your complaint???
>> 
>> 
> 
> The main point I was making is in the subtle transference of  meaning of
> reality from a Q context to a SOM one in the same equation.  But it's not
> really a complaint so much as a "hmmmm"  - ponder.

At this point I could just as easily say Reality(unpatterned experience & 
patterned experience,) but RMP has used so many explanations and
analogies for the practical use of the MoQ/Quality in LILA, SODV, etc.   
More is wonderful but less is perfect.   

Maybe, again, I need to ask for more explanation from you.   



>>> Well, I agree intellectual can only mean formalized s/o,
>>> as you say.  I just disagree that the 4th level is intellectual.  
>>> I guess I'd have to appeal to a higher authority on that. 
>>> Is there such a thing as "higher authority"?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Statically I assume there may be many:  James, Rorty, Dewey, Royce, Pierce,
>> Aristotle, Plato, Joseph Campbell, Wikepedia, etc., etc., etc.,,,,    Take
>> your pick.
>> Did I miss anyone?
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 

> 
> Yeah!  The guy I was thinking of was mr R.M.P himself who came up with the
> names and the levels.   

I admire his genius, everything known and everything unknown.  


> But it raises interesting questions in my mind as to
> whether we as a group can decide things for ourselves, seeing freshly for
> ourselves what is good and what is not good, without appeals to authority
> figures.

Interesting question.   



> That's an ongoing debate that isn't discussed much.

Do you rely on intuition?  


> 
> I'll be home for lunch today and I'll post some more then, for now, I'm off
> to trudge through the snow.



What?  Did you get 30 inches of snow?  That would be trudging.


Marsha


 
___