[MD] Indeterminate?

[MarshaV]

dmb,


On Apr 7, 2013, at 3:59 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Marsha said:
> 
> I was addressing Dynamic Quality as indivisible, undefinable and unknowable: inderterminate.  I was not addressing the philosophical problems associated determinism/indeterminism.  And I clearly stated that I was using the standard dictionary definition. 1.  not determinate; not precisely fixed in extent; indefinite;uncertain.  2.  not clear; vague. 3.  not established. 4.  not settled or decided. ... I think the definition works well. 
> 
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> Well, that doesn't make any sense either. DQ is undefinable and intellectually unknowable but it's directly known and not vague. 

Don't much impressed by what makes sense to you.  


> "Any person of any philosophic persuasion who sits on a hot stove will verify without any intellectual argument whatsoever that he is in an undeniably low-quality situation: that the value of his predicament is negative. This low quality is not just a vague, wooly-headed, crypto-religious, metaphysical abstraction. It is an experience." (LILA)

Marsha:
I meant in the context of indivisible, undefinable and unknowable: indeterminate, and not addressing the philosophical problems associated with determinism/indeterminism.   So crucify me for the word 'vague' being included in the defintion.. 


> 
> "Indeterminate" is a term we see in the Buddhist quotes that you like to post and it's pretty clear that you are foolishly repeating the word even though you don't understand what it means in a philosophical context. You literally don't know what you're saying.

Marsha:
Yes, read it slowly.  

"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."

   (MoQ Textbook)


Marsha:
And what you think I know means very little to me.  With you it's mostly projection and misrepresentation, and sarcasm, irony, parody, insults, and of course, whining, whining, whining.  And you overestate what you know.   It's like you stating you know what RMP and James think.  You recently wrote "This is what Pirsig thinks (and what James thinks) ".   You may have an opinion what they think.   But know?    You are hilarious. 


> Marsha said:
> I remember you writing that you owned a 4-volume set of books entitled 'Encyclopedia of Philosophy'.  Thin ink on thin paper...  Jargon and philosophology do not make you and your posts more valuable; not to me.
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> Nope, never owned a 4-volume encyclopedia and never said that I do. I like the Stanford encyclopedia and Wikipedia is often good enough. 

Marsha:
Oops, my bad...


> 
> Thin ink on thin paper, eh?  You don't care about jargon or philosophology, eh?

Marsha:
No more than RMP.  He seems to have had little respect or use for either.  


> See, this is the kind of stuff that makes you so profoundly anti-intellectual.

Marsha:
I told you that I once confused your snarkiness for intelligence, but that didn't last long.  My rejecting your jargon and philosophology does not make me an anti-intellectual, only someone not impressed with you.   


> Given the present context - your misuse of a philosophical term in a philosophical discussion group - what you really seem to be saying it that you are ignorant of the topic on which you are speaking and you fully intend to remain ignorant. You even seem to be saying that you are proud of being so ignorant, that misusing terms and making contradictory statement is some kind of virtue. Sour grapes, I guess.
> 
> It's okay if you understand why your views are so mixed up so long as the capable participants can see that you are not to be taken seriously. I don't really care how you react so long as my point is understood by the folks who are actually interested in a philosophical discussion of the MOQ. 


Marsha:
And here are some of your more memorable intellectual comments:

---

On Feb 23, 2013, at 10:36 AM, david buchanan wrote:

I'm not really talking to you anymore. I'm just talking ABOUT you to others. Why? Because you just can't hear what I'm saying anyway, so why should I bother?    

---

On Feb 23, 2013, at 5:39 PM, david buchanan wrote:

Ultimately, Marsha's attitude is hateful and irresponsible and amoral. And the actual conceptual content is just incoherent drivel. It's an embarrassment. What did Robert Pirsig ever do to Marsha such that she would abuse his work like this? What did the English language ever do to deserve this torture? 

---

On Mar 6, 2013, at 1:42 PM, david buchanan wrote:

Why does Marsha constantly condemn intellectuals, academic philosopher and William James and then act like this is Pirsig's attitude too. It's obviously not. That's just a reflection of Marsha's anti-intellectualism, resentment, jealous and the like. It's pure bullshit. And it's merely personal too. She just can't stand the idea that I could correct her misunderstanding. It's empty, irrational, ego-driven nonsense. She turned it into a trivial contest of wills wherein she thinks she can win the argument through sheer repetition, as if posting her contradictory drivel over and over again will somehow make it coherent. It won't.  
 
 ---
 
On Mar 22, 2013, at 11:33 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

You have no business here, you confused troll.  Go away.
 
 ---


Marsha: 
I doubt you have impressed many with your _intellectual_ contributions to these discussions, you offer mostly snarkiness, jargon, philosophology and textual evidence bingo.  You are like a Bill Hicks without the heart or intellect, and I'm not impressed.  You are merely one voice on this list, and not more significant than any else's.   

Can you at least try to introduce an interesting topic???    One that doesn't start wit "Marsha said...".  

   

Marsha
 
 



 
___