Dan, Roger, all
Marco:
> >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.
>
Dan:
> 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?
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.
> 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....
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.
> >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.
Thanks and ciao,
Marco
p.s. to Roger
nothing to add, as it seems we are in agreement. Thanks and ciao to you too.
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