Hi Marsha
And that is why I do not say that I did experience DQ, and why I do
explain the experience as unpatterned experience. DQ is beyond
explanation. I'm 'explaining' the experience, describing it as
unpatterned.
But "unpatterned" seems to indicate that you don't think it's SQ.
Some SQ patterns are *very* dynamic. We may never be able to predict
what will happen when we experience such patterns, and as such, they are
perhaps best described as "unpatterned". But my point is that it's still
some SQ pattern at the other end of the quality event/experience.
1. The "patterns that identify it" are the formulas we use to
calculate the gravitational force, i.e. F=g*m (or
F=G*m1*m2/r^2) using Newton's version.
2. The "force" is what's stopping you from banging your head in
the ceiling if you jump upwards indoors.
The two are different. That's what the levels are all about. To
be able to tell things like these apart. They are not ghosts
anymore as Phaedrus thought in ZMM, they are different
types/levels of patterns.
Neither are wrong, but what would this force be without those
patterns? Unknown.
Without 1 it would be unknown, but not unreal. That's a heck of a
difference.
How could something that is unknown be real in any sense of the
word? How would it be judged real in any sense of the word? You will
need to explain your logic.
4.5 billion years ago, our solar system started spinning around its
newly born star. An educated guess is that nobody was there to watch it,
therefore nobody knew about it until afterwards.
What do you mean by "known"? That some enlightened being thought about
it? That a lesser being looked at a juicy looking apple? That an amoeba
swam left because the water tasted better that way? That a molecule
bonded with another molecule forming a larger molecule?
At some point, you have to decide what constitutes "knowing", and that
is a *very* hard call to make. So can you tell me exactly *when* was the
earth "known"? Did it become real in that instant?
Please explain *that* logic.
Don't you understand that the levels are here to solve that puzzle? We
can now recognize that the earth have been around since it formed. Life
has been evolving at its own pace and now we're here to *know* it. The
*knowing* is an intellectual pattern, nothing more. Before that, lower
level patterns was there without anyone knowing about it. It was
unknown, but not unreal.
That old joke about "known" being the only measure of reality is just
bull. Forget it!
> Oh, maybe it is that if it is unknown, it would not exist to be
> labeled either real OR unreal???
Labelling stuff is what the intellectual level does. It labels other
types of patterns with its own label. So if something is unknown, it's
simply not labelled at all. Neither real nor unreal.
Are you denying the reality of the inorganic level? Because if you
do, all higher levels become unreal too, because all higher levels
are dependent on lower.
I am not denying the conventional reality of the inorganic level.
Conventional reality? What's that?
They are both patterns of value, yes. But the force is inorganic,
the theory is intellectual.
Yes, science needs to divide these for rational analysis, I
understand that science creates all sorts of boundaries for the
convenience of its method, but I'm not sure they can be considered
two separate patterns. I do not see how gravity exists, even as a
force, separate from the theories that created it. I see the logic
of it for practical purposes, but interrelated/ interdependent
otherwise.
Stop blaming science and rationality.
Write "F=m*g" on a piece of paper and put it on the floor.
Stand beside the paper and jump up.
How are those two experiences, reading the formula and jumping, similar?
What we say here is of course intellectual patterns. BUT, note that
I said "what we say here", not "what we talk about".
You are being too subtle for me. You will need to explain. It
sounds like you are saying that gravity can be two different things
dependent on the circumstances.
No, "gravity" is one thing, the "theory of gravity" is another. No
circumstances are relevant. It has nothing to do with multiple truths.
"What we say here" are just the words that I write, there's not much
inorganic stuff in those, some electrons, some coloured areas on your
computer screen, or some ink on a paper.
"What we talk about" on the other hand can be anything that those words
represent, via the common language we use here.
That would fit that the MoQ
supports multiple truth. - I have given far more consideration to
the nature of all patterns than to categorizing individual patterns
into their proper level.
I started in the other end, categorizing until nothing was left outside.
Then the nature of the levels became quite clear as well.
I remember starting this thread by stating that all static patterns
of value had a relationship with thoughts/consciousness/thinking.
Yes, zoom out - refocus? :)
And I still claim that the relationship between the theory of gravity
and gravity is that the "theory of gravity" is an intellectual pattern
that does its best to represent the inorganic pattern gravity. Neither
the intellectual version of the inorganic version is objective, or "out
there". Because even if the direct connection between the theory of
gravity and gravity is provisional as you put it, there *is* a hard
dependency between the intellectual level and the inorganic level.
There's no dependency between the specific intellectual *pattern* that
we call "the theory of gravity" and the inorganic pattern though. But
that's not really relevant.
What we talk *about* can be of any level.
Right. Talking about granite is talking about an inorganic pattern
of value, yes?
Yes.
Magnus
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
