Hello Bo and John and everybody,
On Dec 26, 2009, at 4:05 AM, [email protected] wrote: > John and Marsha > > Dec. 24 John said >>> I don't know what is meant by "unpatterned responses". In fact, the >>> term "un"patterned gives me gas. It sounds suspiciously like >>> phlogoston to me, something postulated in order to fit a pre-formed >>> view, with no empirical evidence supporting it whatsoever. If you >>> said, "pre-patterned" with the implication that the human valuing >>> agent (nod to Ham) is going to be doing some patterning in the near >>> future, I'd have an idea what you meant. But as it is..... > > Marsha >> Unpatterned experience is direct experience without static patterns of >> value. You do no like my use of 'unpatterned experience', you say to >> hear the term gives you gas, but I remember you didn't like my >> definition of the self either. Both self and unpatterned experience >> cannot be bound by words, so I grant you that the words I use to >> refer to either are false. > > The term "unpattterned" refers to MOQ's DQ and has become > Marsha's pet. An un-pet of hers is that words/concepts are the "big > bad wolves" that destroy the "un-patterned" peace. This is the > Buddhist inheritance, like the "pointing finger to the moon" as if there > is a moon without inorganic heavenly body and biological senses > patterning it and a social language to know it's called something. All > this buddhist stuff was OK in ZAMM, but in the MOQ it is superfluous > or directly confusing. Unpatterned experience is Marsha's pet only that it is available to experience, and makes clearer the nature of patterned experience. Patterned experience is Marsha's pet. That should at least be obvious after so many years on this list. Hallelujah! But I still can get confused between John, the real and John, the story. I confess I do not know when any of you would need to make a calculated decision based on the levels, other than hypothetically. Bruce's example, with breast cancer, seemed so much nonsense. What is far more important from my point-of-view is knowing the nature of ALL patterns. That's where the freedom lies, imho, a freedom that leads easily to doing good. Quality is unpatterned experience and patterned experience, the holy and the broken Hallelujah. Does the MoQ say something different? > > Then the "self" issue which is more intriguing. It was a hot topic for a > long time back in the Lila Squad days I guess even before it became > recorded in the archives. You know, SOM has its SELF- > consciousness monitoring the world and even itself, while the MOQ - > that has the four levels that constitutes existence can't have one > overseer that monitors a partitioned "screen" unless we are back in > SOM. Particularly as the inorganic level well can't be "selfish" > Methinks it is S/O-intellect that trespasses into MOQ's territory. The self is a conceptual flow of ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality. But maybe you and John experience a different relative "truth". 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/
