[MD] cloud of probability

[MarshaV]

On Jun 11, 2011, at 12:37 AM, Dan Glover wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:15 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jun 10, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Ham Priday wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> dmb says:
>>>> Like the man says, and like every reasonable person knows,
>>>> metaphysics must be definable, divisible and knowable or
>>>> there isn't any metaphysics.
>>>> 
>> 
>>>> Marsha offered the RMP quote:
>>>> "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)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Why, then, did the man choose to call his Quality thesis a "metaphysics"?
>>> Did he want his acolytes to spend their time trying to resolve a contradiction?
>>> 
>>> Just curious,
>>> Ham
>> 
>> 
>> HI Ham,
>> 
>> Since the quote was something I offered, I'll attempt an answer.  I suggest
>> that he was using the MoQ as a map, menu, pointing finger.  But of course,
>> only RMP may know the answer to your question.
>> 
>> Why did you write yours?
> 
> Dan:
> 
> The quote is being taken out of context by Marsha to make some point.
> It is an answer to the mystic objection that the world is beyond
> definition, as Phaedrus stated in his first book, ZMM. What point
> Marsha is trying to make, I have no idea. And I am not going to ask as
> I know she won't give me an answer anyway.

Marsha:
My point and guess was that he was using the MoQ as a map, menu, 
pointing finger.  But of course, only RMP may know the answer to your 
question.   



> Dan:
> 
> He wrote about the MOQ because it is interesting! Yes, he understood
> that he was violating his own thesis, but he decided to go ahead and
> do it anyway. It is all right there in LILA. Chapter 5. It isn't that
> long. I'd suggest reading it, Ham. But I've made that suggestion
> before, haven't I?


RMP:  
"The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called 'Quality' in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. Quality doesn't have to be defined. You understand it without definition, ahead of definition. Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions.

"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.

"It would be almost like a mathematical definition of randomness. The more you try to say what randomness is the less random it becomes. Or 'zero,' or 'space' for that matter. Today these terms have almost nothing to do with 'nothing.' 'Zero' and 'space' are complex relationships of 'somethingness.' If he said anything about the scientific nature of mystic understanding, science might benefit but the actual mystic understanding would, if anything, be injured. If he really wanted to do Quality a favor he should just leave it alone.

"What made all this so formidable to Phaedrus was that he himself had insisted in his book that Quality cannot be defined. Yet here he was about to define it. Was this some kind of a sell-out? His mind went over this many times.

"A part of it said, 'Don't do it. You'll get into nothing but trouble. You're just going to start up a thousand dumb arguments about something that was perfectly clear until you came along. You're going to make ten-thousand opponents and zero friends because the moment you open your mouth to say one thing about the nature of reality you automatically have a whole set of enemies who've already said reality is something else.'

"The trouble was, this was only one part of himself talking. There was another part that kept saying, 'Ahh, do it anyway. It's interesting.' This was the intellectual part that didn't like undefined things, and telling it not to define Quality was like telling a fat man to stay out of the refrigerator, or an alcoholic to stay out of bars. To the intellect the process of defining Quality has a compulsive quality of its own. It produces a certain excitement even though it leaves a hangover afterward, like too many cigarettes, or a party that has lasted too long. Or Lila last night. It isn't anything of lasting beauty; no joy forever. What would you call it? Degeneracy, he guessed. Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity."


> Thanks,
> 
> Dan


Marsha 




 
___