From: Matt poot (mattpoot@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Feb 02 2004 - 17:26:08 GMT
>Paul:
>I think this is a mistake made by pragmatists, how can all awareness be
>a linguistic affair? What about the fairly common existence of
>pre-lingual infants? This is exactly what the MOQ does *not* say. It
>agrees with Buddhism that awareness is fundamentally beyond and prior to
>the construction of words and intellect. If this, above, is how
>pragmatists have to interpret the statement then I think most of the MOQ
>is lost before you go any further.
-=*P0OT*=- CHeck out the sensory deprivation theory thread for my version of
semi-non-lingualism. I would like to see what you think, and to have your
input. I would agree with what you say here....if thought were a linguistic
affair, then our thoughts would be so rigidly defined, that wed be
imbeciles. How can you have true intellectual development without feeling /
thoughts ?
>
"How do you know it has high value? Are
you certain? How can you be certain?"
>Paul, pointlessly, replies:
>I can only be certain of what beliefs are of high value to me. As for
>knowledge in general, it can be described as an aggregate of what is of
>high value for everyone in the way of belief.
-=*P0OT*=-The questions "How do you know it has high value? Are you certain?
How can you be certain?" to me, represent the likes of questions ,
unanswerable, which only have one answer, which is "Mu". Just because we do
not have a yes or no answer to these questions, does not mean that our
answer is insignificant. By the very nature of those questions, they cannot
lead to a yes or no answer, at least not in a lingual way.
How do you _know_ value has reality? Well, actually, that's the easy
question answered by Pirsig.
The much more difficult question is How do you _know_ value is the
primary empirical reality? How do you _know_ Quality is all there is?
How do you _know_ it grounds everything?
>Paul, in the depths of pointlessness, replies:
>I know that it (value as primary empirical reality) is better than any
>other explanation of experience I've heard of but can offer no more
>"proof" than that.
-=*P0OT*=- In our current system of belief, our own feelings must always be
questioned. Using those silly questions, can not possibly prove that we do,
or do not know what Quality is (the Mu answer again). However I still
believe that this Mu answer is 'Right'. Not right as is correct, but right
as in....well.....I can't really explain it. Sometimes you have to trust
yourself.
However, this does not mean that I'm saying if some(everyone) are being
misled as to the source of things. If we're alway asking questions like the
famed "If a tree falls, and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a
sound?", then can you really get anywhere. Don't get me wrong though, I
still think those questions are important, so long as you dont use them
incorrectly. Asking a question to which there is no TRUE answer, to disprove
something else which cant really be proven by words is very silly.
How can I 'prove' that I know Quality is the source for me? well, I
bloodywell can't, except inside myself. If I met someone in person who also
understood, I believe there would be a sort of spiritual union .....well,
not spiritual union, but the feeling you sometimes get with someone when you
both know whats being said, without it having being said. This to me is
proof.
But what do I know , anyways? not much.....
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 02 2004 - 17:28:09 GMT