[MD] Where does DQ end and SQ begin and SQ end and DQ begin? It's all bananas isn't it?

[MarshaV]

J-A,

It seems to me it represents a naive realism in the psychological sense, even to many among us who need certainty and think they own truth.  I do not relate it to Descartes.  But if you do, well, then you do.  


Marsha

On Mar 24, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <jananderses at telia.com> wrote:

> Cogito, we think, therefore we are...
> 
> J A
> 
> 
> 24 mar 2013 kl. 11.49 skrev MarshaV:
> 
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> See how easily he dismisses the paradox to suit one particular interpretation: His.
>> 
>> Here is something by David Bohm that hints at the confusion:
>> 
>> "Reality is what we take to be true.  What we take to be true is what we
>> believe.  What we believe is based upon our perceptions.  What we perceive
>> depends upon what we look for.  What we look for depends on what we think.
>> What we think depends on what we perceive.  What we perceive determines
>> what we believe.  What we believe determines what we take to be true.  What
>> we take to be true is our reality."
>> 
>>    (Mathieu Ricard & Trinh Xuan Thuan, 'The Quantum and the Lotus: 
>>           A Journey to the Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism Meet', p.121)  
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 23, 2013, at 4:53 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> dmb said:
>>> There is no such thing as a preconceptual [tree]. It's one of "the forms which we make" and DOES NOT YET exist in "the basic flux of experience".
>>> 
>>> Pirsig said:
>>> "You can't be aware that you've seen a tree until after you've seen the tree, and between the instant of vision and instant of awareness there must be a time lag. . . The tree that you are aware of intellectually, because of that small time lag, is always in the past."  (Pirsig, ZAMM)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Craig Erb asked:
>>> How do we reconcile these 2 quotes.  On the one hand, the tree is only in the FUTURE, after experience.  On the other hand, the tree is in the past BEFORE intellectual awareness. IMHO there are 2 varieties of the MoQ: anthrocentric MoQ (AMoQ) and pan-experiential MoQ (PMoQ).  In AMoQ spov's emerge from the experience of humans. In PMoQ spov's emerge from their own experience: amoebae back away from acid and iron filings value movement toward magnets, without humans being involved. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> dmb says:
>>> The Pirsig quote comes from the middle of ZAMM, where he's trying to explain Quality in terms that could be understood by the faculty in Bozeman, who were behaviorists. So I don't think there are two varieties of the MOQ so much as there are simple and sophisticated ways to express this idea. In Lila, where the levels of static quality are organized into an evolutionary hierarchy, it is very tempting to conceive of them as evolving and emerging long before humans came along to experience them but that is a huge mistake. That way of taking it would convert the MOQ back into SOM because the world would be conceived as an external pre-existing reality, an objective reality by a new name.
>> 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