Hello everyone
>From: "Marco" <marble@inwind.it>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Self, Free/Determinism : a short essay (again... ;)
>Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 22:00:03 +0200
>
>Dan, Roger, all
>
>Dan, I was not meaning your whole interpretation of the MOQ, which I don't
>know
>entirely, of course. I was refering to a precise your sentence, that was:
>"The
>image in our mind of reality is reality. There is no other reality". I
>don't
>subsribe to this statement, at least as I can understand it. About the
>danger
>I see in it, I think that it's too absurd and out of any common sense to
>help
>the MOQ to be widely accepted.
Hi Marco
I take it then you do not subscribe to the statement "man is the measure of
all things" as the MOQ does. Do you feel that statement is also absurd and
outside of any common sense experience? If it is not absurd, then how would
you reconcile your point of view with it?
>
> > This is most distressing to me and something I have pondered on quite a
>bit
> > myself. Would it be better just to delete all my work and forget it?
> > Sometimes I think it would be better. All I need is one real
>justification
> > and the work will be done, and it'll be a load off my mind too. Can you
>give
> > me just one real justification? Mind you, many have tried before you and
> > failed, including myself, so it had better be good.
>
>Oh no, Dan! I like your site and I enjoy surfing on it from time to time.
> So,
>far from my intention to convince you to abandon. BTW, I confess I saved
>off-line on my PC the whole LC when you had to delete the on-line
>version....
Thank you Marco. Glad you enjoy.
>
>M:
> > >Assumptions. The MOQ also is an idea, an assumption. The MOQ assumption
> > >tells
> > >that the plant exists thanks to biological patterns of value, using the
> > >inferior
> > >inorganic level as support. The MOQ assumption tells that those kinds
>of
> > >patterns have existed in times before any social patterns and any
> > >intellectual
> > >assumptions. So, IMHO assuming that plants are assumptions of my mind,
>and
> > >NOT
> > >independent biological and inorganic patterns of value, it is also
>assuming
> > >that
> > >the MOQ is wrong. It is well legal, BUT IT IS NOT MOQ.
> >
> > It is your statement that the plant is an assumption of your mind, not
>mine.
> > I wrote that the plant is in your mind. I wrote that there might well be
>a
> > plant out there, but no one has ever seen one directly. I wrote we
>assume
> > the plant is independent of us as observers, but I fail to see where I
>said
> > the plant is an assumption itself. To be sure, the plant is real. The
>atom
> > bomb was real. And despite the looks of disbelief I get from visitors to
>my
> > home, that is a real blue-jay flying around my kitchen and he'll shit on
> > your forehead (if you're not careful) just to prove it. :)
> >
> > Perhaps it is the language differences between us that creates the
>tension I
> > feel here.
>
>Could be. Just, I fail to see how it is possible to combine these two
>sentences:
>
>"The image in our mind of reality is reality. There is no other reality".
>and
>"The atom bomb was real".
>
>without concluding that the atom bomb is only in (my? our? Japanese? )
>mind.
Yes, this does get confusing at times. I have never seen an atomic explosion
myself, so I have no experience to draw on. How do I know the atomic bomb
was real? The same way I know everything real is real. I have formed
agreements with reality (see William James). There is no "real" reality we
experience yet we "know" what is real, otherwise we could not function in
society. If, for example, either of us felt the other to be delusionally
insane we would not be having this discussion. I take that to be a given,
just as it is a given that the atomic bomb was real for anyone who
experiences the high quality intellectual patterns of value we call history.
>
>
> > >Marco:
> > > > >Tell me. Don't you agree that the there's no place for two
>different
> > > > >undefinable
> > > > >things?
> > >
> > >Dan:
> > > > There is no such thing as an undefinable thing. Things are defined.
> > >Dynamic
> > > > Quality is not a thing.
> > >
> > >Marco:
> > >You perfectly know what I was meaning. You are just playing with words.
>Not
> > >very
> > >constructive.
> >
> > I must confess I fail to fathom what you mean despite your assumption to
>the
> > contrary. As each thought is a mirror of Universe I feel if I have a
>perfect
> > thought I will be perfect and there will be no need of explanations.
>Then, I
> > will bother you no more. Until that time, can you explain how there can
>be
> > an undefinable thing? And if there were, what difference would it make
>if
> > there were two different undefinable things? Sorry for not being
> > constructive but I fail to understand what you are driving at here. I am
>not
> > just being clever with words.
> >
>
>Ok, sorry. Probably I'm not clear, tell me. "Thing" was not the right term,
>but
>actually no term could be appropriate to that extent.
>
>I was just pointing out that even if we use different terms to indicate
>something of indefinable (DQ, TAO, Experience....) we are necessarily
>pointing
>to the same ..... indefinableness, as it is has no sense to assume two
>diverse
>indefinablenesses. I asked you for your agreement on this point.
>
>IMO, according to the above point, assuming that experience is totally
>indefinable is assuming that experience and DQ are the same. On the other
>hand,
>assuming that experience is *to a point* definable, is like to say that
>experience and Quality/Reality are the same, as Quality/Reality is *to a
>point*
>definable, as you wrote.
Thank you for your clarification. I think experience is defined, and if it
isn't, we put our efforts to defining it. Perhaps that is where science,
religion, and art all meet. Perhaps that's why it is so difficult to keep
Dynamic Quality undefined. We insist on defining what we experience.
Thanks again.
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:29 BST