Seasoned Greetings Marsha.
Unpatterned experience is Marsha's pet only that it is available to > experience, > and makes clearer the nature of patterned experience. This is akin to Royce's early use of the Absolute as a postulate - because it makes the rest clearer. And that's ok. Postulates are fine, for a while. But since metaphysics wants to investigate what is real, metaphysicians like real food for thought, not postulated food for thought. Postulated food gives us gas. > 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. > > Oh lord, you said a mouthful there! I'm finding myself more and more in much the same quandry. If I could just stick with two socialized entities, the MoQ and my life, I'd be fine. But interfacing with the rest of the people in the world can be so difficult. How to explain to them about DQ and how it seems to be eating my life? > 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. > Doing good starts with knowing good. How can you know what is good when it's all relative? Words inscribed over the entrance to the CIA's headquarters in Langley supposedly read, "For ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Words to live by indeed, but obviously only applicable to those entering through the door. The rest of us on the outside will have to live with the lies of Governmental secret agents. Oh well. > Quality is unpatterned experience and patterned experience, the holy and > the broken Hallelujah. Does the MoQ say something different? > > I would say something different. I'd say Quality is the patterning force that swings our moral compass goodward. I'd also say that I got that view from RMP, nowhere else and if that's not what he is saying, I'd like to know. 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". > I do have some differences. Non-human selfs are all non-intellectual, some human selfs are quite anti-social and If machine intelligence ever evolves to the point that we bequeath recognition of selfdom, the biological component would be missing. I sorta like "conceptual flow", but once you've pointed that out the rest is just redundancy, except for the DQ and that's not a given, but a choice; which is an important aspect of self-i-tude that your definition lacks. But hey, whatever floats your boat amongst the stars. John 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/
