[MD] perceptions

[MarshaV]

David,

Not meaning to be a smartass, but there is a big difference between a universal statement and a existential statement, and that would be a first step towards understanding. 
 
 
Marsha 



On Apr 9, 2013, at 2:29 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Hi David,
> 
> Hmmm.  Did you mean 'What do you mean by saying that its not a problem if we cannot ALWAYS understand each other?'  
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 9, 2013, at 12:28 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Marsha,
>> 
>> "It's analogy all the way down and all the way out, and not a problem if we cannot always understand each other."
>> 
>> What do you mean by saying that its not a problem if we cannot understand each other?
>> 
>> On 09/04/2013, at 7:08 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Joe,
>>> 
>>> It's analogy all the way down and all the way out, and not a problem if we cannot always understand each other.  I hope you _understand_ that I use the term 'indeterminate' because "Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable" and my explanation had no relationship to the philosophical determinacy/indeterminacy problem, in spite of the noisy straw dog.
>>> 
>>> Where to put sensations is interesting and sometimes a fun place to play, though I don't believe it to be dependent on what is workable and useful in explanation.  Schopenhauer had some good thoughts on the subject. I remember presenting some A.S. posts on perceiving apples.  
>>> 
>>> And I certainly find it hard to believe you mind being obscure.  What to do with consciousness is also interesting and deserving a good story.  I don't believe the intellectual (static) MoQ is suppose to represent the Absolute Truth:
>>> 
>>> "Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act since it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher mystic one. The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries to control and devour philosophy is wrong with metaphysics when it tries to devour the world intellectually. It attempts to capture the Dynamic within a static pattern. But it never does. You never get it right. So why try? 
>>> 
>>> "It's like trying to construct a perfect unassailable chess game. No matter how smart you are you're never going to play a game that is 'right' for all people at all times, everywhere. Answers to ten questions led to a hundred more and answers to those led to a thousand more. Not only would he never get it right; the longer he worked on it the wronger it would probably get."
>>> 
>>> (RMP, 'LILA', Chapter 32)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi MarshaV and All,
>>> 
>>> I sense no urgency in trying to come to grips with metaphysics.  MOQ tweaks
>>> the logic of SOM!  I am not convinced that I have a proper conception of
>>> logic.  An open forum seems to be the most rewarding test for logic.  I am
>>> sorry I am so obscure.  Good luck to you!
>>> 
>>> Joe
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/7/13 4:21 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>> 
>>>> You're on your own.  I am not sure what you are talking about.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Apr 7, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Marsha V and All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> SOM's theory of how we know things was through abstraction of the essence
>>>>> from reality by the mind, giving it intentional existence in the mind using
>>>>> a definable word form from a template of previous experience.
>>>>> 
>>>>> MOQ, Pirsig suggests knowledge is the direct experience of reality  DQ/SQ.
>>>>> Dreams can follow that experiential reality, creating analogues mocking
>>>>> reality?
>>>>> 
>>>>> How can I know indefinable DQ?  For me consciousness seems to be the only
>>>>> reality that identifies a capability of an indefinable direct experience of
>>>>> DQ.  Dreams are interesting and creative mocking consciousness.  They seem
>>>>> so real.  Nightmares!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Joe 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 4/6/13 9:50 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> What do you mean by 'direct perception'?   To the question "What is that?",
>>>>>> the mind may adjust the visual data, but not apply language?  Or do you have
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> different explanation?
>>> 
>>> 
>>>