[MD] expanded rationality

[MarshaV]

Mark,

Very seldom do I find you annoying; and you will value what you will.  That's nice...  


Marsha 


On Jul 12, 2012, at 3:35 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>> 
> 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