[MD] Truth and Relativity 2.9.9

[MarshaV]

Greetings,

Mark writes as a postscript:
"ps: By the way, the only way to fully comprehend Watts, imo, is to listen to him.  Reading him is insufficient.". 

Marsha:
And here is a perfect example of Mark's intelligence.  It's about as ridiculous as David Harding's Either/Or Fallacy. 



Marsha 




Sent from my iPad

On Feb 13, 2012, at 5:54 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi dmb,
> 
> And yes, of course you are right.  I saw no reason to respond to this
> misinformation, since I am tired of correcting it.  Many posts ago I
> tried to lead Marsha to the idea that we create experience, we do not
> receive experience.  Perhaps now that she has read some Watts, she has
> come around.  Perhaps once she has deconstructed everything into
> patterns she will attempt to reconstruct something from it.  It is a
> game of Legos in such cases.  I do not see the purpose.
> 
> Watts has no interest in making measurements between things or in
> saying that our awareness is simply a process of our mechanically
> computing what we get in and then spitting it out, which is the
> "relative" dictate.  Things exist relationally in that you cannot
> separate them.  The relative analysis pretends to do just that.  If we
> are relative to our environment, it means nothing.  We and our
> environment are intrinsically linked, and there is not way to separate
> one from the other as the term relative would imply.
> 
> There is relative time, and there is intuitive time.  Both are
> completely different as Gödel figured out through mathematical
> metaphysics.  Oh, if you want to read a good book, read Gödel, Escher,
> Bach, which came out a few years after ZAMM.  It is entertaining and
> thought provoking.
> 
> AsI said, I have grown weary of pronouncements driven by the Google
> search of two words and resulting first page results as to how they
> occur together.  This leads to the posting of "interesting quotes"
> which have no explanation tied with them.  I prefer to do my own
> Google searches.  There really is not much thought going on in that as
> the countless insignificant (and evasive) replies to my explanatory
> posts have taught me.
> 
> Thanks for your post,
> Mark
> 
> ps: By the way, the only way to fully comprehend Watts, imo, is to
> listen to him.  Reading him is insufficient.  I have an app on my
> iphone that allows me to do just that.  I also have a pretty complete
> collection of CDs put out by his son.  The spoken word is more
> efffective than the written word since it conveys much more.  Written
> words can be very static.
> 
> On 2/13/12, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Howdy MOQers:
>> 
>> There is relativity in the Einsteinian sense and there is relativity is the
>> "anything goes" sense, but Watts is talking about relativity in neither of
>> those senses. He's making a point about the RELATIONAL nature of existence.
>> He's saying that "things" are what they are by virtue of being tangled up in
>> a total situation, in a context, in RELATION to all other "things". "They
>> exist in relation to each other," he says. As you can see here, Watts goes
>> on to explain this sense of relativism:
>> 
>> "... Indeed, it would be best to drop the idea of causality and use instead
>> the idea of relativity. For it is still inexact to say that an organism
>> “responds” or “reacts” to a given situation by running or standing, or
>> whatever. This is still the language of Newtonian billiards. It is easier to
>> think of situations as moving patterns, like organisms themselves. Thus, to
>> go back to the cat (or catting), a situation with pointed ears and whiskers
>> at one end does not have a tail at the other as a response or reaction to
>> the whiskers, or the claws, or the fur. As the Chinese say, the various
>> features of a situation “arise mutually” or imply one another as back
>> implies front, and as chickens imply eggs—and vice versa. They exist in
>> relation to each other like the poles of the magnet, only more complexly
>> patterned."
>> 
>> Because of this kind of kind murky confusion, which is fairly constant, I
>> think it would be very unwise for anyone to take MOQ lessons from Marsha.
>> 
>> 
>>> From: valkyr at att.net
>>> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:51:25 -0500
>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>> Subject: Re: [MD] Truth and Relativity 2.9.9
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For those Alan Watts fans, he writes "it would be best to drop the idea of
>>> causality and use instead the idea of relativity."
>>> 
>>> 
>>>