[MD] cloud of probability

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 1:09 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> Thank you for your response.  I read the passage you provide over 35
> years ago (my how time flies).  I understood it then, and chose to see
> the world that way.  Many of us conspired in this at that time, and
> all went different directions with their thoughts.  Mine took me to
> dark places that I wouldn't wish on anyone, but I escaped the
> temporary paranoid fate of Pirsig's travels, and did not need my brain
> reset.
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Originally I used the term in order to understand what Marsha meant by
>>> Process.  Since Gravitation and Quality are similar in their uses in
>>> metaphysics, I was wondering whether Quality was a process.  What are
>>> your thoughts on this subject?
>>
>> Dan:
>>
>> Well, first of all, I don't think you're grasping the significance of
>> what RMP is saying about gravity in ZMM, so please allow me to quote a
>> few lines:
>>
>
>
>>
>> ``Why does everybody believe in the law of gravity then?''
>>
>> ``Mass hypnosis. In a very orthodox form known as `education.'''
>>
>> Dan comments:
>>
>> Now, when we think of gravity (or the law of gravity, they're
>> interchangeable) we tend to think of a physical process, which is what
>> you seem to be doing. The meaning of the term "gravity" isn't you
>> falling down when you trip, though. The meaning of gravity is all in
>> your head. It is a ghost of reason. It is the result of your
>> indoctrination, otherwise known as education, informing you on the
>> nature of the world.
>
> [Mark]
> Yes, gravity is a physical process.  Gravitation is a broader concept.

Dan:

You're missing the point... gravity and gravitation are ideas, not
physical processes.

Mark:
>  Gravity is to gravitation as revolt is to revolution.  I would agree
> with you on the indoctrination part of it.  In my opinion, all of
> static quality is from lengthy indoctrination in the West.  That is
> why it is so hard to get away from it.  We are not informed on the
> nature of the world, we are taught what others see it as.  This
> particularly came to light in China, when there was a strict
> re-education policy in place.  Russia did the same thing by rewriting
> history.  Indeed, the same thing happens in the United States,
> depending on who is in power.  There are more ghosts than just that of
> Reason, and it is called a Church by RMP for a reason (no pun
> intended).  The panick induced by yelling "Fire" is another type of
> ghost.

Dan:

Last time I checked, China wasn't in the west though Russia was
leaning that way. It doesn't matter where a person grows up... they
are a product of their culture.

>>Dan:
>> What RMP is getting at in the passages above is that gravity isn't a
>> physical process. Nor is Quality. The fact that we "know" all about
>> Newton and gravity makes us very certain about the "external" world
>> existing apart from our own self. And the MOQ says that the idea that
>> the world exists is a high quality idea. But it is only an idea. There
>> is no way to be certain that there really is a world "out there" apart
>> from the self.
>
> [Mark]
> I agree that Quality is not a process.  A world existing is more than
> just a high quality idea, since it presents itself before ideas at the
> pre-intellectual.

Dan:

No, no, no. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The world
doesn't present itself before ideas. The world is an idea.

Mark:
When it becomes more static, then it is an idea of
> high quality.  The world is "self'.  It is the manner in which that
> out there impinges on our personal awareness.  It is experience for
> each of us, or Sensibility to use Ham's terminology.

Dan:

Gibberish. Ham may understand this nonsense but it is so far from the
MOQ that it merits no response.

>>
>> To answer your question: no. Quality isn't a process. It is an idea, a
>> ghost of reason.
>
> [Mark]
> There is the Quality that we speak of through words and ideas, and
> there is Quality that presents those ideas.  I wouldn't go so far as
> to say that the latter is a ghost.  The former is the ghost of the
> latter.  For certainly for there to be a ghost, it must be a ghost of
> something.

Dan:
Ideas ARE static quality intellectual patterns. To say Quality
presents Quality is pure nonsense, Mark. You claim to have read ZMM 35
years ago but so help me if I can tell. You seem to have no idea what
RMP is on about.

I read it back in 1974 when it was first published. And I've re-read
it quite a number of times, always getting something new out of it. It
is such a powerful book, and the ideas presented in it are extremely
difficult to grasp. I realize that. And perhaps my expectations exceed
the gumption of many people. I love to read. I get started on a
passage from ZMM or LILA and I just keep on reading.

When I suggest to someone that they re-read the books I am not being
arrogant. I am simply suggesting they do what I do so that perhaps we
might meet on a level playing field.

>Mark:
> I am sure this is discussed in Lila's Child, and I will do a word search on it.

Dan:

I believe there is something there that points to the passage I quoted above.

Thank you,

Dan