[MD] Putting SOM back into the MOQ by excluding SQ, let's not do that say some of us

[MarshaV]

The Tao doesn't take sides;
it gives birth to both good and evil.
The Master doesn't take sides;
she welcomes both saints and sinners.

The Tao is like a bellows:
it is empty yet infinitely capable.
The more you use it, the more it produces;
the more you talk of it, the less you understand.

Hold on to the center.

     (Mitchell, Stephen, 'Tao Te Ching', Chapter 5)  


 

On May 2, 2013, at 3:26 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:


Heaven and Earth are ruthless;
To them the Ten Thousand Things are but as straw dogs.
The Sage too is ruthless;
To him the people are but straw dogs.
Yet Heaven and Earth and all that lies between
Is like a bellows
In that it is empty, but gives a supply that never fails.
Work it, and more comes out.
Whereas the force of words is soon spent.
Far better is it to keep what is in the heart.

     (Waley, Arthur, 'The Way & Its Power: A Study of the Tao Te Ching', Chapter 5)   



On May 1, 2013, at 11:29 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone
> 
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:46 PM, X <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Gentlemen,
>> I think what Dave Morey is trying to say, mostly out of the
>> conversation he and Dan were having, where Dan had
>> stood fairly stern about static patterns not being experienced.
>> (Dan was coming from the point of view of the concepts\experience
>> distinction I believe (please correct me if in err)) IS understanding
>> that distinction as given, begin asking the question of what we
>> mean when we say that pragmatic truth is verifyable in experience.
> 
> Dan:
> You seem to be asking about the correspondence theory of truth: "Narrowly
> speaking, the correspondence theory of truth is the view that truth is
> correspondence to a fact."
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/
> 
> Ron:
> What do we mean  when we say concepts "agree"
> with "experience"?
> 
> Dan:
> It appears (to me) that you are using the term "experience" in its obvious
> way... we (as subjects) experience the world (of objects) that exist
> separately and apart from us. Robert Pirsig explains this quite nicely here:
> 
> RMP Annotation 57
> 
> In the MOQ time is dependent on experience independently of matter. Matter
> is a deduction from experience.
> 
> DG:
> 
> Could you elaborate on what you mean by “independently of matter”? I can
> see that time is dependent on experience but am having a difficulty with
> the rest of your first sentence, especially in the context of your second
> sentence.
> 
> RMP:
> 
> I think the trouble is with the word, “experience.” It can be used in at
> least three ways. It can be used as a relationship between an object and
> another object (as in Los Angeles experiencing earthquakes.) It is more
> commonly used as a subject-object relationship. This relationship is
> usually considered the basis of philosophic empiricism and experimental
> scientific knowledge.
> 
> In a subject-object metaphysics, this experience is between a preexisting
> object and subject, but in the MOQ, there is no pre-existing subject or
> object. Experience and Dynamic Quality become synonymous. Change is
> probably the first concept emerging from this Dynamic experience. Time is a
> primitive intellectual index of this change. Substance was postulated by
> Aristotle as that which does not change. Scientific “matter” is derived
> from the concept of substance. Subjects and objects are intellectual terms
> referring to matter and nonmatter. So in the MOQ experience comes first,
> everything else comes later. This is pure empiricism, as opposed to
> scientific empiricism, which, with its pre-existing subjects and objects,
> is not really so pure. I hope this explains what is said above, “In the MOQ
> time is dependent on experience independently of matter. Matter is a
> deduction from experience.”
> 
> DG:
> 
> Yes, this does help, thank you. What bothers me slightly—I am sure I am not
> seeing it in the proper light yet—is how experience can be synonymous with
> Dynamic Quality? Isn’t experience that which we define?
> 
> RMP:
> 
> Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be
> described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the
> definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic
> Quality. So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both infinitely
> definable and undefinable because definition never exhausts it.
> Dan comments:
> 
> This is what the discussion between David H./David M. and myself has
> centered upon. Both Davids insist that we experience pre-existing pattens
> of value. This is the common way of using the term 'experience' as Robert
> Pirsig states: a subject/object relationship. It would appear to me that
> the correspondence theory of truth uses this same definition of experience.
> 
> In the MOQ, however, experience becomes synonymous with Dynamic Quality.
> There are no pre-existing patterns of value, or a pre-existing
> subject/object relationship.
> 
>