[MD] Words and concepts

X Acto xacto at rocketmail.com
Sun Jun 12 07:54:30 PDT 2011 

Just trying to clear up some misunderstandings

Why all the vanity?

really nobody cares what you do.

What we would like is a closer following with the charter rules 
of philosophic discussion as a member of the discuss.

if it's not too difficult.




----- Original Message ----
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sun, June 12, 2011 10:40:13 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Words and concepts


Ron, 

It might be that some of you are trying to turn me into a static 
person with just one MoQ idea; I am not that.  I consider myself 
to be a flow of ever-changing, overlapping, interconnected 
inorganic, biological, social and intellectual static patterns 
within a field of Dynamic Quality.  


Marsha 





On Jun 12, 2011, at 10:11 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> Ron,
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about.  
> 
> I recently had a houseguest, and of course I talked a little about the MoQ.  
> When asked "what is a static pattern?", I found my definition quite useful 
> as a starting point of explanation.  I am not trying to subject any definition 

> concerning the Intellectual Level on anyone.  
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 12, 2011, at 9:58 AM, X Acto wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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



___


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

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list