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: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 22:54:05 +0200
>
>Hi Dan
>
>sorry for the little delay
>
>
>D:
> > The image in our mind of reality is reality. There is no other reality.
>Does
> > a dog have Buddha nature, or not?
>
>RMP:
>«But one day in the classroom the professor of philosophy was blithely
>expounding on the illusory nature of the world for what seemed the fiftieth
>time
>and Phædrus raised his hand and asked coldly if it was believed that the
>atomic
>bombs that had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illusory. The
>professor
>smiled and said yes. That was the end of the exchange.
>Within the traditions of Indian philosophy that answer may have been
>correct,
>but for Phædrus and for anyone else who reads newspapers regularly and is
>concerned with such things as mass destruction of human beings that answer
>was
>hopelessly inadequate. He left the classroom, left India and gave up. »
>
>Dan:
> > 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.
>
>RMP:
>«But although the four systems are exhaustive they are not exclusive. They
>all
>operate at the same time in ways that are almost independent of each other»
>
>«The value that holds a glass of water together is an inorganic pattern of
>value. The value that holds a nation together is a social pattern of value.
>They
>are completely different from each other because they are at different
>evolutionary levels. And they are completely different from the biological
>pattern that can cause the most skeptical of intellectuals to leap from a
>hot
>stove. These patterns have nothing in common except the historic
>evolutionary
>process that created all of them».
>
>
>
>Marco:
>Sorry Dan, I'm sure you perfectly know these and other passages from ZAMM
>and
>LILA, but sometimes I feel the need to reread something to be sure it was
>not a
>dream.
>
>Dan, I've come to the conclusion that this your (and other's)
>interpretation of
>the MOQ is the most dangerous I've found for the MOQ itself.
Hi Marco
Do you mean my interpretation in particular? Or are you grouping several
contributors together with me? If so, what is your justification in doing
that? Of all the people I have talked to over the years about the MOQ, I
find there is only one person who I in general agreement with. That person
does not belong to this forum, so putting me into a group here is a useless
enterprise.
My interpretation of the MOQ is quite vast though nowhere near as vast as
some. Is that what makes it dangerous? Is there a specific part of my
interpretation you can point to as more dangerous than another? Or are you
saying my entire interpretation is dangerous?
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.
>I read newspapers,
>as Phaedrus says, and I find it "hopelessly inadequate". Inadequate to
>explain
>the world I live in. The situations of my everyday life. And, last but not
>least, the input I receive from my senses... and I thought we were also
>empiricists....
>
>«The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and
>economy of explanation». That's right, even the idea that the Earth goes
>round
>the Sun is not in agreement with experience, but at least they have offered
>an
>economic explanation for that. But saying that the plant I'm looking at
>exists
>only in my mind ("There is no other reality"... ) lacks of all these
>basilar
>factors.
>
>IMO it's an absurdity, but it's not the worst absurdity I've heard in my
>life,
>and anyway who am I to state the absurdity of someone else? I've never
>denied
>that in my mind there's an incomplete image of reality, full of mistakes
>and
>prejudices. And I've never denied that this incomplete image of reality I
>have
>in my mind is also real. My idea that your position is absurd is probably
>also
>full of mistakes and incomplete.... of course, your idea about that the
>pine
>tree is only in my mind should be also full of mistakes and incomplete.
Well again, my ego will not let me believe it is my idea. It is not. Nor do
I believe I am right about a thing, thus I see a redundancy in stating that
I could be wrong (ICBW). I assume I am wrong and furthermore I assume
everyone who might read my writings knows I am wrong. If someone reads my
words and judges them to be true, it is through their own inadequacy to see
truth and no fault of mine. Finally, I assume the same of all writings, no
matter who writes, otherwise I could not write at all. Words are quite
useless in describing reality but I find the intention behind them something
to behold. So I read and write. It is a kind of controlled folly, as Don
Juan would say.
>
>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.
>
>
>Sorry for sharing my absurdities.
No apology necessary. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
>
>Ciao,
>Marco.
>
>«He left the thread, closed the mail program and gave up».
>
>
>
>p.s.
>
>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.
Thanks again 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