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: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:18:11 +0200
>
>Hi Dan,
>
>
> > Hi Marco
> >
> > Thank you for the analogy. I do see what you're saying and I appreciate
>how
> > difficult it must be discussing something as complex as the MOQ in a
>foreign
> > language. We cannot find Dynamic Quality by looking for it. We respond
>to
> > it. The MOQ does not subscribe to an "inside" and "around us" notion,
>
>Agree. "Inside", "around" and other terms for the placement of DQ in space
>or
>time are always inadequate and merely metaphorical.
>
> > rather
> > it states there is nothing but static patterns of value, plus undefined
> > Dynamic Quality.
>
>well, even to say that there "are" static patterns and there "is" an
>undefined
>DQ is inadequate and metaphorical. IMO SQ and DQ are just the best way we
>can
>use to describe reality, I can't be sure that there "are" such ......
>things
It is useful to have a center to return to.
>
>
>
> > >Dan:
> > > > yet [rocks, plants, governments] are all concepts,
> > > > otherwise, what are they?
> > >
> > >Marco:
> > >A plant is not a concept. This is the problem we have. There's a plant
>(a
> > >living
> > >organism, a mix of patterns), and there's the concept "PLANT". Not the
> > >same.
> > >(See below my answer to Rog).
> >
> > Dan:
> >
> > Yes this seems to be the core of our disagreement. Consider for a moment
> > that the plant you see is not the plant that is sitting outside your
>window.
> > It is inside your mind. There may well be a plant sitting outside your
> > window but no one has ever seen one directly. Can we agree on this?
>
>yes. The idea of the PLANT is not like the plant. Just an approximation. By
>the
>way, I think that this PLANT sitting in my mind is very similar to the
>PLANT
>sitting in the mind of my dog who's used to piss on it. In other terms,
>this
>ability of building such images in our minds is not the MOQ intellect, it's
>just
>a biological faculty.
The image in our mind of reality is reality. There is no other reality. Does
a dog have Buddha nature, or not?
>
> > As Roger says, we must remember reality is contextual. How can there be
>a
> > solid tree without a concept of a tree? What tree? To even talk about a
>tree
> > is to assume the context of a tree. Tell me how I am wrong.
>
>Let's not mess reality (something we can investigate or not, thus does not
>need
>necessarily concepts to exist) and truth (something we have investigated
>and we
>can agree upon, and it's made of concepts). As I know him, Roger is also
>very
>careful to avoid absurdities. So, as my dog and the plant can't make sex
>and
>have dogtree children, I'm pretty sure that this PLANT sitting in my mind
>is
>pointing to something, and the DOG pissing on the PLANT is pointing to
>something
>else. Whatever they are, it is highly probable (evident, I'd say) that the
>dog
>and the plant are made of different biological static patterns. That's what
>I
>mean when I say that a plant, in order to be a plant, doesn't need the
>PLANT
>concept. ICBW, but, please, tell me how.
I think the problem here arises when we assume there is an independent
relationship apart from the rest of reality (being) and then project that
relationship onto other living beings. There is no self independent of the
patterns. Nor is there a plant independent of the patterns.
>
>
>
>
> > >Dan:
> > > > It seems doubtful we will ever agree on a Dynamic experience for
>there
> > >is no
> > > > way to say what that experience is.
> > >
> > >Marco:
> > >Ergo: It seems doubtful we will ever agree on DQ for there is no way to
>say
> > >what
> > >that Quality is. As it is not possible to have two different
>undefinable
> > >things
> > >(as, in that case, we'd have a borderline, thus a definition) you are
> > >stating
> > >that Quality and experience are the same. And I've agreed. So, let's
> > >eliminate
> > >the term experience, and just call it with its MOQish name: Quality.
>Or, at
> > >least, let's assume Experience as a synonymous of Quality (like Value,
>for
> > >example) thus accept that there is a Dynamic Experience (experiencing)
>and
> > >a
> > >Static Experience (the experienced).
> >
> > Dan:
> >
> > Experience is experience. Quality CAN be defined, to a point. That is
>what
> > we are attempting here.
>
>You are puzzling me. In the beginning of this thread I was convinced that
>experience is undefinable, thus experience is DQ. Then, you have convinced
>me
>that experience is reality... ( and reality " CAN be defined, to a point.
>That
>is what we are attempting here", or not?) So, I have stated "sorry, I was
>wrong, experience is reality and it's partly defined and partly
>undefinable".
>But now you have turned to experience as undefinable..... (?)
I feel uncomfortable eliminating the term experience. We all know what
experience is just as we all know what Quality is. For me, the confusion
arises when we slip past the normal meaning of these terms.
>
>Tell me. Don't you agree that the there's no place for two different
>undefinable
>things?
There is no such thing as an undefinable thing. Things are defined. Dynamic
Quality is not a thing.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
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 - 16:01:28 BST