[MD] The whole yin yang thing

[MarshaV]

Greetings Sir Knight,


On Aug 31, 2010, at 11:17 PM, John Carl wrote:

> Greetings Marsha,
> 
> John:
> I've been pondering a few things, and would like to take this step by step,
> upon due reflection.
> 
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:35 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Aug 28, 2010, at 3:21 PM, John Carl wrote:
>> 
>>> John:
>>> Ok, Marsha,  I have no idea how to proceed in a dialogue which
>>> alway sends in the same formulation.
>>> Neither do I have a clue how to proceed when rationality is rejected.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> Not rejected, but understood to be flawed.
>> 
> 
> John:
> I agree. But ask what does that look like exactly?  How do we treat ideas or
> concepts in a " flawed but non-rejected" way?

Marsha:
With a healthy dose of suspicion...


> John:
> Let me thrust my conjectures upon you, and see if I can wheedle some
> agreement.

Marsha:
As a woman, often I enjoy being on top and like to thrust too!!!    
Got that John???   



> John:
> First, we both agree that rationality is not absolute.  

Marsha:
Rationality claims to be absolute: a thing cannot be both A and not-A.  


> John:
> AND it doesn't get the last word, i.e. if something seems completely
> rationally plausible, but doesn't "feel' right, then we look deeper.   

Marsha:
I would wish to make this a habit of value.    


> John:
> We examine the underlying issues that cause the bad feelings.

Marsha:
It would be nice if so many of the causes were not out of our awareness.


> John:
> But we can't just stop with "it feels wrong"  because relying upon
> feelings and intuitions alone would be as foolish as relying upon
> logic and rationality alone, correct?  

Marsha:
Incorrect.  If a thing must never be both A and not-A, and that is understood 
as the final arbiter, well then things get really messed up.   Surely that is 
obvious!   


> John:
> Neither can be complete in themselves.  They must be in accord.  
> They must dance together and not step on each other's toes.  
> Do you not agree?

Marsha:
I don't agree or disagree.  Agreement based on faulty logic is 
not always a worthy goal.


>>> Marsha:
>>> My instincts, intuition and all just seem to whisper to me, "this
>>> conversation isn't going anywhere."
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> We agree.
>> 
>> 
> 
> John:
> Yes but my quest for understanding makes me wonder why.  It drives me
> deeper into more questions.  More digging.  Intellectual probing is utterly
> instinctual and a self-driving force.  I can certainly stop pestering with
> questions, but I can't stop (or don't wanna) asking why in my own mind.

Marsha:
This makes you irresistibly attractive to me.   This is personal, but no 
matter how outlandish (The Son?  Really!!!) the questions, even those 
pesky theistic ones, because I am an introverted thinker, I find them 
endlessly seductive.  But the ABSOLUTE answer came to me a long 
time ago: "There is no answer now, there never was an answer in the 
past, and there never will be an answer in the future."    Ah-men!!!   

Not A
Not -A
Not (A and -A)

Not (neither A nor -A)

Not this, not that...   

Quality!      Emptiness!      Love!    

I do love to laugh...   


(((  And damn to that pesky karma...   )))    


> John:
> And that's a good thing.

Marsha:
I agree.


> In this case, I'm especially glad that you've irritated me into pondering.
> So thanks, sincerely.  And here's a place where we did both rely upon
> instinct's whispers, and we did both agree, and we both were wrong!  Or
> at least our instincts were.  This conversation is going somewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb9dcv1xDiY    



>>> John:
>>> My instincts tell me that you are being over-defensive, and any
>>> guess I publish as to why, gets immediately shot down by you
>>> as false projection on my part.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> That would depend if you made a false projection.
> 
> 
> John:
> Yes, this was a misunderstanding on my part.  I was puzzled why you
> objected to me making projections - but you were objecting to me making
> false projections,  wrong projections.  

Marsha:
Projections are always that:  projections.   They may be to some degree correct, but 
also very wrong.    


> John:
> You probably figured that I was kinda  obtuse for not getting that, and I was.
> I get awful literal in logical argumentation.  If you leave a word out, don't assume
> I'll guess what it is.  But I will figure it out in the end.

Marsha:
I would never make such an assumption.  You may figure it out, you may not. 


>> John:
>> You post "victory" and "winning an argument" as  very important to you and
>> thus I guess I'll just concede that your superior reasoning (or is it
>> non-reasoning?
> 
> Marsha:
> You could never be a loser in my eyes.
>  
> John:  
> Hah!  That's easy to say when you've never seen me!  But I'll take
> it as a compliment anyway, Marsha.  And yeah, I know.

Marsha:
Good. 


>>> John:
>>> I admit I'm confused) goes right over my head, and I'll take
>>> your word for it that the last word to any discussion, speculation
>>> or query is not this, not that.
>>> 
>>> You win!
>> 
>> Marsha:  
>> No me to win.
>> 
>>> 
>>> John:
>>> Yay Marsha!
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> Boo to Marsha if she seems the winner.
>> 
>> 
> John:  Well then, I was right Yay Marsha.  And Yay John for being right.
> Dancing is a game with TWO winners, ya know.
> 
> Watch out for the twirl I'm about to give you, It's a doozy.


Marsha:
As far as I am concerned, I bumped it out of he park!!!     



Bye John,

   Marsha









 
___