[MD] relative

[MarshaV]

Tuukka,

Of course I will read your paper.  But my interest in the MoQ is as a bridge between the West's objective science and the East's introspective understanding of Mind.  There are many possible truths; there should be room for many ways of exploring the MoQ.  And I am not concerned with my reputation.  I am not ignorant of the fact that the so-called “I”, the self, is just a convenient name for a collection of ever-changing, dependent, contingent patterns.  

I am sure your presentation is a tremendous effort and contribution, and I look forward to reading it.


Marsha
 
 


Sent from my iPad

On Jan 8, 2012, at 4:34 AM, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:

> Marsha,
> 
> but that's no side track. You see, this is actually the way I _do_ philosophy. I talk with people in order to get new ideas myself, and I focus on details just to understand them.
> 
> Do you want a recap of what my system is about? Maybe you should read these:
> 
> History of the MOQ as I see it:
> 
> http://www.moq.fi/?p=6
> 
> How I originally arrived at my notion of recursive patterns, which later, with Matt's help, evolved into cyclical morality:
> 
> http://www.moq.fi/?p=106
> 
> Note that the latter page is slightly out of date with regards to naming. It also introduces a "Networking ontology" that as of now is poorly defined, and probably fig. 8. is wrong in that it does not correctly portray the relationship between networking ontology and other ontologies within recursive patterns. I'm working on this.
> 
> You asked on what my Western certainty is based on. I don't understand what you mean with that. I am that certainty. But I think a more appropriate word for it would be "faith". I think Wittgenstein's book "On Certainty" is a good book, and that's the book he wrote after giving up on the aim he set in Tractatus, according to which everything should be expressed with logically consistent language. Frankly, I am disappointed that you perceive me as a fool who embraces such certainty. And I don't understand why you gave me sarcastic compliments earlier. Compliments are a great thing to have, and if you introduce doubt to them, you are being quite mean. Do you understand I have sacrificed everything in my life that I needed to for this MOQ venture, which includes not having a job and not studying? So I think I don't deserve that. Many people could live like me, but apparently they don't want to, so why should someone be envious if I get a lot of compliments? Why are you being mean? Isn't it you who are sidetracking this conversation? I saw a dream of you last night. You were creating here something others didn't understand at first, but then they understood better. Are you envious of me or why are you being sarcastic? I don't want that. It wasn't a very nice way of waking up this morning to have a social level argument with you accusing me of getting sidetracked after being fakely glad for me for my foresight. Why can't everyone in this discussion board, and not just me, get sidetracked when they want to? I don't have a reputation of doing that to the point of distracting and disturbing conversations.
> 
> You are much respected at LS, Marsha. So is Skutvik. So what's the pattern here? If someone is respected at LS, and they run into me, they will at first have an argument with me? You know, the kindergarden-type of argument. I haven't really had such arguments, or any kind of disappointing or "dirty-feeling" arguments, with any other type of person in the MOQ community. I could have had one with Tim right after we met, but he didn't even pretend that argument was about philosophy, so it was easy for me to just say I don't want to have that argument with him. We didn't talk to each other for maybe in a month, but now we like each other.
> 
> -Tuukka
> 
> 
> 
> 8.1.2012 2:58, MarshaV kirjoitti:
>> Tuukka,
>> 
>> You gotta find it much more difficult to explain your own system (chart and article), than to get side-tracked focusing of Buddhism's "relative truths".
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 7, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Tuukka Virtaperko<mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Marsha,
>>> you gotta have poor self-esteem or something as to interpret that what you said didn't work for me.
>>> 
>>> -Tuukka
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 8.1.2012 1:14, MarshaV kirjoitti:
>>>> Tuukka,
>>>> 
>>>> I suppose your certainty is a Western attitude, but I do wonder on what it is based?  You know all about the future for the West, the Uni, and Western scholars.  That's quite remarkable!   So glad to have given you the opportunity to offer such great foresight and wisdom.  Your brilliance is amazing.  But to repeat what I wrote yesterday, my explorations and definition of 'static patterns of value' are based on my understanding of static quality and Buddhism's conventional (relative) truths.  If it doesn't work for you, please ignore it.  I'll do the same with what you present.  Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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