[MD] perceptions

[MarshaV]

Hi Adrie,

Statically or conventionally "real."  I can buy that!  But if I were only here to know about static or conventionally "real" things, I should be satisfied reading the dictionary and encyclopedia.  It would all be there as deep as the ink on the page.


Marsha

On Apr 6, 2013, at 5:51 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com> wrote:

> It also translates nice as reality is alway partly illusive and all
> illusions are partly real
> hello Marsha
> Adrie
> 
> 
> 2013/4/6 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> 
>> 
>> Hey Joe,
>> 
>> Hmmmm.  Directly perceiving Dynamic Quality, seems to me, makes all
>> "things" and even patterns false: illusions and phantoms (ghosts).  That
>> does not translate into meaningless. Patterns exist as value.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha,
>>      with echo in head "Marsha, you think too much!"
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 6, 2013, at 5:21 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Joe,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, unknowable in the sense that there is a known and knower, so not
>> "conceptually knowable." How about known through direct perception?  I have
>> stated that DQ can be directly experienced and known like one knows the tea
>> is hot when one is drinking it.  Can this be true?  Problem is that I can
>> directly perceive, in such a manner, that there is a coiled snake ahead of
>> me in the road, only to find out later that such certainty was unfounded
>> and what I experienced was merely a coiled rope.  On discovering that what
>> I was seeing was, indeed, a coiled rope, what I do know with certainty was
>> that it was NOT a coiled snake.  This is why I accept the idea that the
>> best way to discover Truth is by discovering what is false.
>>> 
>>> But having written the above, I will leave the issue open for further
>> investigation.  Perhaps Steve Hagen's book will offer some insight on the
>> subject of perceptions.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 3, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi MarshaV and All,
>>>> 
>>>> I have no sense of what you mean by "unknowable" DQ?  Unknowable is not
>> the
>>>> same as indefinable in DQ (indefinable) SQ (definable) metaphysics.
>>>> "Unknowable" means a barrier to the contact of the faculty for
>> knowledge.
>>>> Indefinable accepts a direct contact in consciousness without language.
>>>> "What was that?"  DQ!
>>>> 
>>>> Joe
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 4/2/13 5:31 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> DQ is "indivisible, undefinable & unknowable"; the term 'indivisible'
>> pointing
>>>>> to monism, non-dualistic: indeterminate.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> parser
> 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