On Jul 19, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Magnus Berg wrote: > On 2010-07-19 14:13, MarshaV wrote: >>> Hello again, >>> >>> First, thank you for the seriousness of this exchange. > > Likewise. > >>> 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. > > I think you're forgetting something regarding "experience". Experience > is not just about you, it requires something on the other end of the > experience as well.
Do you think so? I don't think it always to be so. There are static patterned experiences AND unpatterned experiences. > This is usually used the other way around, to > indicate that a tree might *not* fall in the forest if nobody is there > to hear or see it. However, it's just as valid if we turn it around. For > you to have an experience, it requires both an experiencer and something > to experience. This is the subject and object side of the Quality event. > This isn't speculation. The way you use the word "experience", it seems > as if you just acknowledge the subjective side of it, but that's just > half of the experience, half of quality, and half of reality. You do not need to acknowledge anything: neither the subjective nor the objective. > Regarding the "most useful hypothesis" you mentioned. I think the MoQ > levels are quite useful here as well. As I replied to Ham yesterday, some > are often afraid to take anything for granted nowadays, and that is because > SOM doesn't acknowledge anything but the lowest possible explanation to > be really real. It doesn't acknowledge that taste is real, because taste is > just > a biological process built using inorganic ones. Nothing wrong with direct tasteful experiences. I won't deny them. > And then gravity is next, gravity isn't real anymore because there is some > underlying process that explains how it works. So, in fear of believing in > something that might get jerked away, people stop believing in anything. > The only thing that people *can* believe in is experiences that science is > quite incapable of explaining, like why a work of art is beautiful, or why you > like a song. So that becomes the only things that people can say: "This is my > reality. Neither you nor anyone else can take that away from me by explaining > that it's just chemistry, or magnetism, or entropy, or whatever." Conventionally useful and workable patterns are good, and some offer more beauty and harmony than others. > > But the levels of the MoQ *are* exactly such stepping stones that we *can* > believe in. We can claim without having to ever take it back, that the taste > of > the freshly brewed coffee in my cup is real, that gravity keeps my feet to the > ground, etc. For me the levels offer a hierarchical, evolutionary criteria on which to consider moral questions. Why do you need to believe in a cup of coffee? If a cup of coffee is there, taste it. If you trip, pick yourself up. Did I somewhere state that your sister has a mustache or wore army boots? > >> I am of the mind that all patterns have a relationship with thinking >> and that is the cause of the self/object split. > > I disagree. The self/object split is, as I said above, a direct result of the > experience, the Quality event. Thinking is just how we got it into our heads > and are able to foresee the future of the experienced object. I'm still considering this, but I don't see any reason that there is self or object inherent in a pattern, that's why it may be the relationship with thinking that causes the split. I'm investigating. Kind of like chasing ones tail. > >> But in the fourth >> level it has become formalized and can do the most damage by its >> emphasis an objective, thing-in-itself world and "real" knowledge. > > And what damage is that exactly? That things you believe in can be taken away? For all the advanced technological and scientific knowledge the world is a mess with too much ugliness, and without any abatement of greed, and without much relief from suffering. imho > > This will probably sound religious, but: > > Have faith in reality I don't see why I need to consider faith in reality when there is the unfolding of experience. I try to do my best. 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
