On Jul 19, 2010, at 7:24 AM, Magnus Berg wrote: > On 2010-07-19 11:17, MarshaV wrote: >> Sight at its very least is not about identified objects, only form and >> color. But one can experience sight sans even form and color too. >> It is ALL conceived. It's useful and I wouldn't throw away any but the >> arrogance of thinking the "real" has been realized. > > Arrogance is there in SOM, yes, because in SOM, there's no other relationship > between the perceived object in your head and the object observed. > > But in MoQ, we know that there *is* a direct dependency from our internal > image of the object, to the reality of the object via the levels. I'm not > saying that your brain is supported by *that* stone, but I'm saying that your > brain is supported by inorganic patterns just *like* a stone. > > So, in SOM, ALL is conceived. But in MoQ, where we have the level dependency > and know that our internal "minds" are supported by inorganic patterns, we > can know that there are inorganic patterns. From there, I don't think it's > arrogant anymore to give the stone a status of real. > > Magnus
Hello again, First, thank you for the seriousness of this exchange. For me the MoQ is Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience), all else is speculation. What you "know" is bits and pieces of ever-changing, interrelated, impermanent pattern, and I think it arrogant to call that real. Call it the most useful and best workable hypothesis available at the moment, but not real. Marsha ___ 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/md/archives.html
