[MD] Words and concepts

[X Acto]

Marsha,
Your stance appears to be a reactionary response to objectivism. Like a slave 
who
after having been freed still battles with the chains of bondage.

What is being argued is that it is already agreed apon that Quality is Dynamic.
It's what unites us as a group that rejects objectivism.

But in order to understand, to function, to act moraly, it must
be inteligible. To be moral is to be inteligible, to have limit, order
and meaning . To make prefferences as everchanging patterns
of value. It's what it means to be a collection of choices.

Intellect is the most moral level, the highest form of good.

This is a crucial conflict point for the SOM as intellect camp.

.......Ron


...........





 


----- Original Message ----
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sun, June 12, 2011 8:49:54 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Words and concepts


Hi Horse,

I think a great place to look for "ever-changing" as I present it is in the MoQ 
Textbook 5.8.4 THE MOQ, DUKKHA AND AVIDAYA (IGNORANCE) 


"...  As Hagen (1997, p.30) notes, one of the most fundamental truths noted by 
the Buddha is that all aspects of our experience are in constant flux and 
change.    According to the Buddha, when a person ignores this truth they 
subject themselves to dukkha."  


...

"...  Following Taoism, Hagen sees that the fundamental nature of reality is 
change and reality can be handled more effectively if this is realised. This is 
because though irritation and discomfort will tend to arise, they will also 
eventually tend to subside. Dukkha occurs primarily because we wish things were 
different i.e. had a permanent, static nature."

  "In order to understand what is being said here, one should try and imagine 
all things, objects of experience and oneself, the one who is experiencing, as 
just a flow of perceptions. We do not know that there is something ‘out there.’ 
We have only experiences of colours, shapes, tactile data, and so on. We also 
don’t know that we ourselves are anything than a further series of experiences. 
Taken together, there is only an ever-changing flow of perceptions 
(vijnaptimatra). (Williams, 1989, p.83)"

...

  "This is supported by Herbert Guenther (1957, p.144) who adds:

  "Experience is the central theme of Buddhism, not theoretical postulation and 
deductive verification. Since no experience occurs more than once and all 
repeated experiences actually are only analogous occurrences, it follows that a 
thing or material substance can only be said to be a series of events 
interpreted as a thing, having no more substantiality than any other series of 
events we may arbitrarily single out.""

  "After some thought, I think Guenther’s comment is valid as I can’t think of 
any events that are repeated exactly. Moreover, like the concept of ‘self’, 
there’s no absolute objective rule to judge when one event starts and another 
stops. This means that any concept or term is fundamentally indeterminate, 
imprecise and, as time passes, increasingly less useful." 



I have meant what is very similar to what is quoted here.

                                                    
Marsha  






On Jun 12, 2011, at 7:47 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> Horse,
> 
> I have only a static 'understanding' of the MoQ.  I am not trying, one way or 
>another, to make anybody else accept it.  I am still exploring different 
>aspects.  Patterns happens to be one area that I found interesting right from 
>the beginning.  My mention of Arlo was just kidding.  I meant no harm.  I think 
>Arlo's project is great.  
>
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 12, 2011, at 7:18 AM, Horse wrote:
> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> While I'm sure Arlo will be flattered, the reason that Dave spends so much time 
>>on what you say is because, over the years, you have managed, consistently, to 
>>misunderstand Pirsigs MoQ.
>> You seem to have a very good grasp of Bo's MoQ, Marsha's MoQ, etc., etc. 
>>However neither of the aforementioned (or the etc.'s) appear to have much in 
>>common with the MoQ as described by Robert M. Pirsig and this, I believe, is the 
>>point that DMB is trying to convey.
>> He (and others) also needs to spend that amount of time because (as with Bo 
>>previously) you are spending more than a reasonable amount of time promoting a 
>>misinterpretation of Pirsigs MoQ on a forum that is here to discuss Pirsig's 
>>MoQ.
>> 
>> Still, as Dave says in another post, it has given him (and a few others) the 
>>chance to defend the MoQ against the sort of misinterpretations that could (and 
>>does in at least on case) cause confusion.
>> 
>> Horse
>> 
>> On 11/06/2011 20:51, MarshaV wrote:
>>> dmb,
>>> 
>>> I'm so flattered that you need so much of my attention.  Nine out of ten of 
>>>your posts are directed towards what I have said.  While I think you are cute, I 
>>>still cannot vote for you to become prom queen.  I am going to vote for Arlo.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha
>> 
>> -- 
> 



___


Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html