[MD] The hard question.

[MarshaV]

"A human individual may appear to have a specific and determinate nature (what can be referred to as their social or parikalpita nature). However, a person is essentially related to the rest of the world and is not apart from it. There are a tremendous number of inter-related chemical, biological, social and intellectual processes that operate within and around us (such as gravity, the pollination of flowers by insects, the production of oxygen by rainforests etc.). Remove or alter any one of these components and the ‘individual’ is affected. This is implied by Nagajuna who states:

     "Nothing in the universe can stand by itself – no thing, 
      no face, no being, and no event – and for this reason it is 
      absurd to single anything out as the ideal to be grasped. 
      (Watts, 1957, p.83)

 This recognition that everything (certainly on this planet) is interconnected seems to be gaining credence though possibly because, environmental and economic problems are, unfortunately, now tending to have noticeable and global effects...."
   (McWatts, MoQ Textbook) 






On May 19, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Ian Glendinning
> <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dan,
>> 
>> Pirsig reacting to a "definition" of value as vague, says as you quote
>> "there is nothing vague about value / value-judgement"
>> 
>> Doesn't change the fact that by definition it's vague, even though by
>> experience it's not.
>> 
>> ie is this not a point about definitions, rather than about value ?
> 
> Dan:
> 
> My point to Marsha had more to do with her rather unwieldy definition
> of interplay: an ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent,
> impermanent and conceptualized processing in the infinite field of
> Dynamic Quality. That is not the definition I find in the
> dictionary... interplay is the effect two or more things have on one
> another. Now... isn't that simple?
> 
> I mean, WTF do you do with that definition that Marsha offered?
> 
> Poor Marsha, Dan thought. And then she wonders is the discussion
> closed? What discussion? What am I supposed to discuss about that kind
> of definition?
> 
> 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