[MD] pragmatic

[MarshaV]

Hello Mark,



On Aug 31, 2012, at 12:14 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:56 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
> 
>>> [Ron in response to Marsha's claim of the hypothetical being her truth]:
>>> Rhetorically, saying that ALL static patterns are hypothetical (supposed but not necessarily real or true.) is nothing short of provokation. It turns truth (pragmatic good) into a supposition when Pirsig clearly states that it is the most empirically real as any truth can be, the immediate NOW of experience.
>>> 
>>> Exactly how can the immediate NOW experience be a supposition when it is the most real and true experience there is?
>> 
> [Marsha in response]:
>> I don't think of the NOW experience as being a 'supposition'.  I don't think of the NOW experience being 'real' or 'true' either.  It is only afterwards such an experience is assigned an analogous descriptor.
> 
> Mark:
> This is interesting.  As I understand Marsha, reality is only created
> in hindsight.  This could indeed be the truth from which Marsha speaks
> (unless she is lying in order to be "provocative").  I suppose it all
> depends on how Marsha is using "truth".  She speaks from the position
> of truth, for that is where we all come from.  Even if we feel that
> everything is a lie, that is a position of truth.  If indeed the
> existence of reality is only proclaimed with words, this seems to me
> to be contrary to what MOQ states.  Here again, this concept is
> reality for Marsha, for reality is where we come from.


Just to be clear, I didn't write that anything was "necessarily assigned".  



Marsha




> If I were to look through a window and see a view, would I then
> question the window I am looking through in terms of the view I see?
> It seems that such a thing would simply result in a paradox.  It takes
> a viewpoint to make a proclamation.  Such a proclamation should not
> short-circuit by questioning the the viewpoint itself, or else the
> proclamation itself is nonsensical.  If we suppose that where we start
> comes from what we consider to be true, then we can expand from there
> and become creative.  If instead, we claim that such truth is only
> demonstrated in hindsight, then where do we begin?  The very statement
> becomes suspect because it must wait until after it is made to claim
> that it is true.  It destroys all sense of creativity.  It is like
> puncturing one's tires before going for a drive.
> 
> We come from a place that we know.  This place is the beginning of
> what follows.  We come from that place called Quality.  There is
> nothing behind or beyond it which creates this place.  It is a
> starting point.  We can question it all we want, but we have to first
> "be" in order to question.  I am, therefore I think.  What I am is
> Quality, which then forms all things.  This I hold to be true, and
> from that I can begin.
> 
> Mark
> 
>> 
>> 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