[MD] Reverse cryptology on Lila

Tuukka Virtaperko mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net
Sun Mar 25 18:31:48 PDT 2012 

Hi Mark,
Please tell more?

-Tuukka



26.3.2012 4:11, 118 wrote:
> Hi Tuukka,
> I think this is a silly question.  All we do is provide posts for
> others to read.  If such readers find themselves wasting their time,
> then that is their problem.  A conversation takes two people, each
> side is responsible.  Just keep on posting, I learn something from
> what you write.  Stop this victim nonsense, you are unique and grand.
> This is not a forum for feeling justified; it is not a forum for old
> static men.
>
> I started working on my project, again, which is an analysis of parts
> of Lila using reverse cryptology.  This is similar to how Kabalah
> analyzes the old testament and other documents.  Some may say that
> such scholars are out of their minds, but I have found otherwise.
> Language is the use of symbols, and such symbols can be analyzed in
> many ways.  Contextual meaning is just a superficial manner in which
> to do this.  The use of an appropriate cypher is required to decrypt
> passages, which is the difficult part (and has occupied me for several
> years now).  However, I am now suddenly making headway.  You would not
> believe what such an analysis shows Lila as presenting!  It is indeed
> an age old and Perennial Philosophy.
>
> To those of you who have no interest in this, this post is not for
> you, so please do not complain; carry on with your own projects
> whatever they may be.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Tuukka Virtaperko
> <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>  wrote:
>> Everyone,
>> I asked DMB, who on this mailing list does he like or consider a good
>> conversationalist. He didn't answer. I'm curious... so now I'll ask
>> everyone, who likes DMB or considers him a good conversationalist?
>>
>> Also, I have never meant to be a burden. Is DMB right that I'm wasting
>> everyone's time? Should I consider ceasing to post in this forum? What do
>> you think?
>>
>> -Tuukka
>>
>>
>>
>> 25.3.2012 23:34, david buchanan wrote:
>>> If you don't want to play along, that's fine. But now you've posted more
>>> than anyone else in this thread and yet you are not playing. You are
>>> interfering with the game, changing the subject to the wonderfulness of you
>>> and otherwise wasting everybody's time. If you don't care to play, then
>>> don't post on this thread. Or in this forum.
>>> It's like the drivel masters are hell bent on making sure that quality
>>> conversations can never happen. Every decent conversation is murdered in its
>>> crib.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:21:47 +0300
>>>> From: mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net
>>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [MD] Dewey's Zen
>>>>
>>>> DMB,
>>>> see, I've been playing this same game for a couple of years already -
>>>> reading more mainstream philosophy (I agree that "Dewey's Zen" is not a
>>>> pure example of "mainstream"), finding concepts that are intended to be
>>>> something the MOQ expresses better, and replacing them - writing pages
>>>> and pages of notes for myself. So no, I don't play games with that,
>>>> because it's already something I do systematically. If I want to do that
>>>> to "Dewey's Zen", I'm more likely to borrow the entire book and read at
>>>> least fifty pages. I don't mean to put you down by not playing your
>>>> game. I do understand your game, and playing games is how this more
>>>> serious approach got started.
>>>>
>>>> -Tuukka
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 25.3.2012 23:13, Tuukka Virtaperko wrote:
>>>>> Look, DMB,
>>>>> I don't have time for this bullshit. You posted an useful article, I
>>>>> wanted to thank you for that. I guess I just couldn't believe you
>>>>> actually do think it's good to reject positive things other people
>>>>> give, such as respect. I'm not interested in playing your game,
>>>>> because it is not relevant practice for my work. I was interested in
>>>>> the article you posted. You were useful for me, but in a way which you
>>>>> did not intend, and now you seem to say this implies that I'm stupid.
>>>>> Talk about drivel.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Tuukka
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 25.3.2012 21:55, david buchanan wrote:
>>>>>> dmb says:
>>>>>> Thanks for playing along, Dan. I'm going to withhold comment and hope
>>>>>> others take a shot at it to too. (Since Tuukka doesn't seem to
>>>>>> understand the core concept of this game, you're the only one to
>>>>>> participate so far.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:37 PM, david
>>>>>>> buchanan<dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>     wrote:
>>>>>>>> This might be fun but it's also a kind of experiment. I was reading
>>>>>>>> a paper and saw many parallels to Pirsig, which wasn't very
>>>>>>>> surprising because it's titled "Dewey's Zen". But I wonder if
>>>>>>>> others read it the same way I do. In certain passages it seems like
>>>>>>>> one could plug Pirsig's terms into the sentences and they'd still
>>>>>>>> mean the same thing - almost exactly. Telling you more than that -
>>>>>>>> like which terms I had in mind - it would ruin the experiment. How
>>>>>>>> about if I just post a bit of it and let everyone take a shot at
>>>>>>>> it? Maybe it would be fun to put in Pirsig's terms wherever you
>>>>>>>> think they would fit. Take your pick or play with them all, but
>>>>>>>> please be explicit enough to let me know if you're seeing the same
>>>>>>>> thing that I'm seeing.
>>>>>>> Hi David
>>>>>>> Been editing one of my books most of the evening... I love the
>>>>>>> writing... the editing, not so much... but since I cannot afford to
>>>>>>> pay someone to do it, it falls to me. Anyway, I thought I'd throw out
>>>>>>> a few ideas to chew on...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...experiences come whole, pervaded by unifying qualities that
>>>>>>>> demarcate them within the flux of our lives. If we want to find
>>>>>>>> meaning, or the basis for meaning, we must therefore start with the
>>>>>>>> qualitative unity that Dewey describes. The demarcating pervasive
>>>>>>>> quality is, at first, unanalyzed, but it is the basis for
>>>>>>>> subsequent analysis, thought, and development. Thought starts from
>>>>>>>> this experienced whole, and only then does it introduce
>>>>>>>> distinctions that carry it forward as inquiry.
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> The author seems to be saying the same thing that RMP says when he
>>>>>>> talks about Quality coming first, and how ideas arise from 'it'. The
>>>>>>> qualifiers the author uses seem contradictory on the surface though it
>>>>>>> is possible I'm not seeing things properly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>              It is not wrong to say that we experience objects,
>>>>>>>> properties, and relations, but it is wrong to say that these are
>>>>>>>> primary in experience. What are primary are pervasive qualities of
>>>>>>>> situations, within which we subsequently discriminate objects,
>>>>>>>> properties, and relations.
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> See... the author subtly shifts here into saying these qualities are
>>>>>>> pervasive and the demarcation only happens later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Dewey took great pains to remind us that the primary locus of
>>>>>>>> human experience is not atomistic sense impressions, but rather
>>>>>>>> what he called a "situation," by which he meant, not just our
>>>>>>>> physical setting, but the whole complex of physical, biological,
>>>>>>>> social, and cultural conditions that constitute any given
>>>>>>>> experience—experience taken in its fullest, deepest, richest,
>>>>>>>> broadest sense.
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> A minor quibble here... in the MOQ, experience is synonymous with
>>>>>>> Dynamic Quality. Static quality comes later... inorganic, biological,
>>>>>>> social, intellectual.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mind, on this view, is neither a willful creator of experience, nor
>>>>>>>> is it a mere window to objective mind-independent reality. Mind is
>>>>>>>> a functional aspect of experience that emerges when it becomes
>>>>>>>> possible for us to share meanings, to inquire into the meaning of a
>>>>>>>> situation, and to initiate action that transforms, or remakes, that
>>>>>>>> situation.
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> To respond to Dynamic Quality, in other words...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The pervasive quality of a situation is not limited merely to
>>>>>>>> sensible perception or motor interactions. Thinking is action, and
>>>>>>>> so "acts of thought" also constitute situations that must have
>>>>>>>> pervasive qualities. Even our best scientific thinking stems from
>>>>>>>> the grasp of qualities.
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> "Acts of thought" are ideas? Is that what I'm understanding here? And
>>>>>>> yes, the MOQ would seem to agree that ideas are as 'real' as inorganic
>>>>>>> and biological patterns... they exist on different evolutionary
>>>>>>> levels, however.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And perhaps my favorite....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>              The crux of Dewey's entire argument is that what we
>>>>>>>> call thinking, or reasoning, or logical inference could not even
>>>>>>>> exist without the felt qualities of situations: "The underlying
>>>>>>>> unity of qualitativeness regulates pertinence or relevancy and
>>>>>>>> force of every distinction and relation; it guides selection and
>>>>>>>> rejection and the manner of utilization of all explicit terms."
>>>>>>> Dan:
>>>>>>> I should think that in the MOQ, culture is the regulating force of
>>>>>>> distinctions and relations... remember how Phaedrus read about the sun
>>>>>>> flashing green before he actually looked up and 'saw' it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.danglover.com
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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
> 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