At 04:52 AM 9/22/2008, you wrote:
Hi Marsha
I think you're headed toward Descartes "I think, therefore I am",
aren't you? Since all you can really know is conceptual,
everything else might just be your imagination.
No, everything is connected to everything and is
ever-changing. No reason to call me despicable names. I think
the truth makes you uncomfortable.
Ouch, sorry about that. It was not my intention to insult you.
But I'm pretty interested in that "truth" that you think makes me
uncomfortable.
What truth is that?
Greetings Magnus,
To me all significance is found in the nature of patterns. And I'm
afraid I am not the one to explain this to you. In some ways, it
does undermine "science" as we "know" it. (I think you can say it
undermines economics too.)
Directly experiencing phenomenon is possible, but requires awareness
which happens seldom. It's mostly the patterns that cause the
confusion. I have come to understand patterns as the conceptual
opposite-from-non-(elephants for example).
But I think the MoQ has something to say about that. Since concept
are intellectual patterns, and intellectual patterns are dependent
on all lower levels, it *proves* that the underlying patterns are
just as real as the intellectual concepts that we do know to be real.
You wrote "that we do know to be real" What is this
knowing??? And what is this real??? Listen to the words of Lila.
Ok, cut that last part. And you can probably exchange the remaining
"real" for "phenomenal" if it makes more sense to you.
Phenomenon is there, but not in the patterns. Within the patterns it
is only symbolically represented.
I think the four (4) levels are ingenious, perfect in fact. But I
agree there is a problems. I had to go to Buddhism to make the
levels meaningful. But that meaningful seems to indicate much more
than what goes into what bucket. Four ways of knowing? Maybe, but
that's not quite right either. I don't know what to say. Let the
author speak. Really! Or if you think you can explain their
significance, please do. I used the word significance purposefully.
I made a very serious attempt at explain the level's significance in
my latest essay "The levels undressed". Saving the discreteness and
dependency was a high priority. It's on www.moq.org and I urge you
to read it if you're interested.
I did read your paper. I do not think that additional levels will
solve the problem. Again, I see the significance in the nature of
patterns. Understanding that nature of patterns changes
everything. It totally changes how one relates. It is betterness.
I do not believe changing the MOQ is the right move. The MOQ is
perfect. One needs to adjust one's own view. And the way to move
this along is to understand what is a pattern.
Marsha
.
.
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
