[MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics

[MarshaV]

Marsha:
I do not understand what you are suggesting.   My 
preferences for words may change relative to my 
history and DQ too. 





On Oct 9, 2010, at 10:11 AM, X Acto wrote:

> what you say, perhaps not
> 
> what you preffer, now thats another story
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Sat, October 9, 2010 10:08:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics
> 
> 
> Marsha:
> No, Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable.  What I 
> say about Quality is not Quality, it is a static representation 
> relative to my history and DQ.  
> 
> Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience)  
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 9, 2010, at 10:02 AM, X Acto wrote:
> 
>> it seems quality is knowable
>> 
>> you just expressed prefference for the term "ultimate"
>> 
>> you know you like it better.
>> 
>> thats Quality
>> 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Sent: Sat, October 9, 2010 9:58:37 AM
>> Subject: Re: [MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> I haven't any idea what you're talking about. I cannot find a clear 
>> definition of the word 'absolute'  as you are using explaining it.  
>> 
>> Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable, so it seems to 
>> me that what we can say about it is not Absolute, it is relative.    
>> 
>> I prefer 'ultimate.'  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 9, 2010, at 9:42 AM, X Acto wrote:
>> 
>>> I think this where the trouble stems from in regard to "emptiness" too.
>>> it's a matter of preference concerning meaning of terms.
>>> 
>>> does emptiness accurately convey betterness?
>>> 
>>> not really
>>> 
>>> but "ultimate" tends to hint at a finality
>>> 
>>> where absolute hints at form, but absolute quality hints at formless form.
>>> 
>>> we know it but can't define it.
>>> 
>>> what do you think?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>> Sent: Sat, October 9, 2010 9:34:35 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics
>>> 
>>> Marsha:
>>> I do not use the word 'absolute'; I like better the word 
>>> 'ultimate.'  The Absolute is beyond my ability to know it.  
>>> 
>>> Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience)  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Oct 9, 2010, at 9:31 AM, X Acto wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Quality is absolute
>>>> 
>>>> absolute betterness
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>>> Sent: Sat, October 9, 2010 9:06:37 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> I do not consider my measurement of truth as absolute.  
>>>> I have no knowledge of what is Absolute.  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Oct 9, 2010, at 9:02 AM, X Acto wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> sure you do
>>>>> 
>>>>> you have knowledge of what you like and dislike
>>>>> 
>>>>> you have knowledge of Quality
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>>> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>>>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>>>> Sent: Sat, October 9, 2010 8:45:41 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>> The question was to John's explanation of an 
>>>>> _Absolute_ measure of truth because he claims 
>>>>> that one exists.  I do not consider my measurement 
>>>>> of truth as absolute.  I have no knowledge of what 
>>>>> is Absolute.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 9, 2010, at 8:19 AM, X Acto wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> You already posses it Marsha. 
>>>>>> Your own values
>>>>>> your collection of likes and dislikes
>>>>>> put to work in everymoment of experience.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>>>> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>>>>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>>>>> Sent: Thu, October 7, 2010 1:48:23 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What is this Absolute measure of truth?  Where is it?  How can I 
>>>>>> get access to it to apply it when necessary?  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marsha  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Oct 7, 2010, at 1:12 PM, John Carl wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yeah, dave, I sorta figured you were referring to to philosophical
>>>>>>> relativism rather than physical relativism.  In my book, the latter 
>> refutes
>>>>>>> the former.  I've always argued against Relativism in my philosophic
>>>>>>> disputations also.  So I with you on that one.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> dmb says:
>>>>>>>> If you are talking within the context of physics, "relativity" is about
>>>>>>>> time and space. In the context of philosophy, however, relativism is a
>>>>>>>> position on truth and morality. So Einstein's theory is not in dispute 
>>>> here.
>>>>>>>> The dispute is about epistemological relativity and its relation to the
>>>>>>>> pragmatic theory of truth. That is the context in which "relativity" 
>> means
>>>>>>>> there is no standard by which to measure things like truth and moral 
>>>> values.
>>>>>>>> As you may have noticed, I think relativism is a very bad idea with very 
> 
>>>> bad
>>>>>>>> consequences and I think the pragmatic theory of truth is NOT a form of
>>>>>>>> relativism.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Usually though, my disputation takes the form of Relativism vs. 
>> Absolutism,
>>>>>>> and since you and I agree on disparaging Relativism, I'm puzzled how you 
>>> can
>>>>>>> disagree with me that Truth is an Absolute Ideal. Even if you make
>>>>>>> Experience your Absolute, it is still, an Absolute.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> John


 
___