[MD] Contradiction and incoherence.

[MarshaV]

Greetings John,

"This is supported by Herbert Guenther 204 (1957, p.144) who adds: 

     Experience is the central theme of Buddhism, not theoretical postulation and 
     deductive verification. Since no experience occurs more than once and all 
     repeated experiences actually are only analogous occurrences, it follows that 
     a thing or material substance can only be said to be a series of events interpreted 
     as a thing, having no more substantiality than any other series of events we may 
     arbitrarily single out. 

"After some thought, I think Guenther’s comment is valid as I can’t think of any events that are repeated exactly. Moreover, like the concept of ‘self’, there’s no absolute objective rule to judge when one event starts and another stops. This means that any concept or term is fundamentally indeterminate, imprecise and, as time passes, increasingly less useful."
       (MoQ Textbook)  

Marsha:
"Since no experience occurs more than once", and not repeated exactly, then experience is ever-changing.  This means, as Anthony recognizes, that "any concept or term", or any value pattern (I suggest), is fundamentally [that's FUNDAMENTALLY] indeterminate (DQ).  This is also stated as:


"In addition to the Dynamic Quality viewpoint of the MOQ corresponding to what Nagarjuna terms sunyata (i.e. the indeterminate or the world of Buddhas), the static quality viewpoint of the MOQ also corresponds to sunyavada (i.e. the conditioned component or world of maya) of Nagarjuna. Sunyavada includes all conceptions of reality including metaphysical views, ideals, religious beliefs, hopes and ambitions; in other words, using MOQ terminology, static quality patterns. 


"Moreover, Nagarjuna (1966, p.251) shares Pirsig’s perception that the indeterminate (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static): 

      In their ultimate nature things are devoid of conditionedness and 
      contingency belongs to this level. This very truth is revealed by 
      also saying that all things ultimately enter the indeterminate dharma 
      or that within the heart of every conditioned entity (as its core, as its 
      true essence, as its very real nature) there is the indeterminate dharma. 
      While the one expresses the transcendence of the ultimate reality, the 
      other speaks of its immanence. The one says that the ultimate reality 
      is not an entity apart and wholly removed from the determinate, but is 
      the real nature of the determinate itself.

"Nagarjuna and Pirsig also have a similar recognition of two types of truth; the ‘static’ conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) and the ‘Dynamic’ ultimate truth (paramattha- sacca)."
       (MoQ Textbook)  

 
Marsha:
Static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality. 


Marsha
 
 






On Mar 24, 2012, at 4:34 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> First off,
> 
> "Less useful" is not synonymous with "useless".  I agree completely, of
> course.  But my point remains.  While "less useful" is not the same as
> useless, it sure is antonymous with "more useful" and that is my claim.
> That it is precisely linguistic conceptualization's tendency to overgrow
> it's boundaries (or to jump a level!) that makes it so precious, so
> important and makes humans so much more than mere machines.
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:43 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi John,
>> 
>> Not sure what your problem might be, and not sure that I have any dominion
>> over what you find problematic.  I'm pretty much at ease with
>> indeterminate, and depend on the provisional (static) like most everybody
>> else.
>> 
>> 
> Dominion?    Like I could be dominated, Hah!  Or you for that matter.  We
> share that much in common at least.  What resonates with me is the Ellul
> quote I provided some long time ago in the past, that it is precisely
> language's ambiguities and misunderstandings which make it MORE useful
> rather than less, cojoined with C.S. Peirce's idea of language as a sign,
> and not a discrete "thing".  That's the baggage I carry which makes
> Pirsig's scientific bent, as revealed in the quote, problematic for me.
> 
> Take care,
> 
> Me.
> 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