[MD] expanded rationality
118
ununoctiums at gmail.com
Thu Jul 12 12:35:21 PDT 2012
Hi Marsha,
I never complain when you answer. I just ask more questions :-).
Not this, not that, simply means that it cannot be pointed to. It
does not mean anything beyond that. Love cannot be pointed to either,
so it is also "not this, not that". In fact many things in ordinary
existence are "not this, not that". I do not believe it is as
fundamental a concept as you seem to make it out to me. As you point
out, it is simply a topic for contemplation. It is what comes from
that contemplation that matters. That is what I was asking for. What
aspects of MoQ do you find meaningful if you contemplate that one
cannot point to Quality.
We could say that the fundamental nature of SQ is DQ. We could also
say that the fundamental nature of DQ is SQ. Both are correct.
However, this form of cause-effect may not be the only way to
appreciate Quality. If we are speaking of the determinate v the
indeterminate (which I like by the way), there is not cause-effect
relationship. Unless there is a process by which we can make the
determinate out of the indeterminate. Often I have asked others in
this forum for this process, but nobody seems to have any idea, other
than it is the process of "ladel dipping", whatever that means.
I too believe that knoledge can be analogized to a ghost. Although I
do not believe that "ghost" is the best word. I think the word
"structure" or "projection" are better words. We generate an
experience, so I do not think it is a ghost, unless everything is a
ghost. The term "ghost" would then have no meaning. We give
something a name to differentiate it from something else. This is why
I asked what is NOT a ghost to you. That is what I meant by "what is
real?". If you live in a world of ghosts, there is nothing to build
from.
I am not asking you to point to something, I am asking for your
opinion. That is all that I provide. If the "patterns concept" you
like to use helps you let go, then I can fully understand that. As
such it is useful. Stop the clinging as it were. This is the kind of
experiencial answer which serves in MoQ which is set forth by example.
With enough examples, we can all work together in presenting the
Quality that we all view the world by. Pirsig was a start, and the
concept of Quality is not hard to grasp if one looks beyond the
literal Pirisg presents. Quality is a manner of viewing existence
which is different from our conditioned views. It provides meaning in
a different way, and I think we would all agree, more meaning. One
does not have to abide by a classically Western format of "seeing".
We can each express how we would present our view through Quality.
One cannot grasp Quality by reading or writing about it alone.
Awareness of Quality must come from before the writing about it.
There are some who prefer to write about the writing of it, which is
fine, but that it not the MoQ, that is a second hand MoQ, which really
displays no sense that the author actually "knows" what Quality is.
In existentialism, the good philosophers had a pretty good idea what
they were talking about since they experienced it. There is no single
(one way) to present existentialism just like there is no single (one
way) mode for presenting Quality. Indeed, like existentialism, a
fully formed MoQ must come from a variety of experiences. There are
many ways in which to present Quality with metaphysics and still
remain true to the examples that Pirsig presents. Blah, blah, blah.
I know, you find me annoying.
Still, I enjoy your comments.
Mark
>>>>>synopsis so far:
On Jul 10, 2012, at 12:49 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net wrote:
Greetings,
There it is: "all knowledge is hypothetical". I've been
listening to a youtube audio about Karl Popper, his 'Science of
Falsification'. It's a Popper quote. Not an idea original to
me, probably something I read in the book 'Black Swan' which had
many good things to say about Popper.
On Jul 10, 2012, at 12:56 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR wrote:
[Arlo]
Interesting hypothesis...
On Jul 10, 2012, at 10:00 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net wrote:
Hi Arlo,
And oh I do like it, but can it be falsified? I don't think so…
On Jul 10, 2012, at 5:27 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com wrote:
If it is a hypothesis, how do you go about proving it?
Yet another inane question from the mind of Mark the scientist.
On Jul 10, 2012, at 4:04 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net wrote:
Hi Mark,
That universal qualifier (all) means it cannot be proved, and I
cannot see how it it can be falsified either. As a hypothesis it is
a loser. I do think one can still hold all knowledge to be
hypothetical; hypothetical as in supposed but not necessarily real or
true.
On Jul 11, 2012, at 12:56 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com wrote:
OK,
If knowledge is not REAL, then what IS real to you? I am not sure how
you are using the word real so I do not understand. Is anything real?
Just some more inane questions since I have no clue what you are
talking about.
Marsha:
Are you wondering about the adjective 'necessarily' in "necessarily
real or true"? It came with the dictionary citation. I hypothetically
accept static, or conventional, knowledge.
Marsha
If I suppose a angry bear is chasing me, I suppose I will run?
Mark:
For example, is knowledge not to run into a conflict in Serbia real
for you?
Marsha:
I prefer the idea of negotiating conflict resolution in Serbia.
On Jul 11, 2012, at 3:53 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com wrote:
OK Marsha,
Here is question 3 of the Socratic dialogue.
Is the fact that you hypothetically accept static or conventional logic
real?
I am simply asking where you base your foundation. This is, of course
in line with Arlo's comment on infinite recursion, a paradox that is
easily avoided. Although it is fun to play with since such paradoxes
can bring about understanding outside of the paradox.
So, again, what is truly real for you?
On Jul 12, 2012, at 8:31 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net wrote:
Hi Mark,
Thought I made it clear the other day that the fundamental, for me, goes
all the way down to 'not this, not that', or
All conditioned dharmas
Are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows,
Like dew drops and a lightning flash.
Contemplate them thus.
On Jul 12, 2012, at 1:31 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com wrote:
Hi Marsha,
Yes, I know that is where you "go down" to, that being "not being able to
point."
You may recall that I asked how do you "go up" from that starting point to
your current beliefs. I had suggested you simply reverse the direction of
your getting down to "not this, not that". This should be easy since you
have gone one way already. I just don't know how you get from the
"inability to point" to MoQ. I thought I might learn something.
On 7/12/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net wrote:
Hi,
It's more like a chute down: dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows, dew drops,
lightening flash, wheeeeee... not this, not that... The steps to get back
up are all but a ghost of an experience. You asked for the foundation and I
gave it to you: the fundamental nature of static quality (the determinant)
is Dynamic Quality (the indeterminate); now please do not complain when I
answer. I do not always need to reject static value, because the insight is
always near, or at least it seems so. That's letting go. Not always, of
course. I am not close to being nominated for mystic-hood.
What additional type of pointing to the MoQ would you have me perform. My
favorite aspect of the MoQ is patterns of value, the ghostly perceptions and
conceptions which have such wondrous existence. I am also awed by the
"code of art" in its rising above the self and contact with the
indeterminate. Ever listen to the overture to Parsifal? Or Beethoven's
Ninth? Or the Concierto de Aranjuez? All the arts, of course. Etc. &etc.
&etc...
> 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