On 2010-07-26 15:54, MarshaV wrote:
But "unpatterned" seems to indicate that you don't think it's SQ.
And logically that would leave only DQ, right? I do not think such small
experiences allow one to leap to any grand conclusions about DQ.
Neither do I. That's why I'm trying to make you rethink what the
experience was in terms of SQ and DQ.
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.
I guess I cannot prevent you from analyzing my experience to your own
comfort level, but may I please remind you that it was not your experience.
Of course it wasn't mine, but at the same time, you can't expect me to
revise my understanding of the MoQ based on your 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.
It's still an educated guess that is conventionally postulated as 'real'.
What do you mean by "known"?
I don't know. What do you mean by "known"?
You used the term first so it's your term to explain. I was asking
because if you answer I can give you a better example to show what I mean.
That some enlightened being thought about it?
I do not know what you mean by "enlightened" being in
this context?
Another reason why this would be much easier if you just answer my
question above.
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?
Lovely...
I don't think you're being serious with me anymore. I'm trying to show
you why I so strongly believe that the ZMM ghost called gravity can be
explained much better using the levels, than reverting to some old
if-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest-and-nobody-is-there-to-hear-it-it-doesn't-fall-philosophy.
And your reply is, I don't know, demeaning.
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?
I am having more success discovering the falseness in what I
know.
Dodge left...
Please explain *that* logic.
The ultimate truth (knowledge) is best approached by discovering
what is false. Conventional truths are useful and relative.
...and dodge right.
"best approached by discovering what is false"?? That was exactly what
Phaedrus thought was misrepresented with the scientific method in ZMM!
Science told everyone that it was able to enumerate *all* hypotheses,
and then refute one by one (i.e. discover which was false) until only
the correct one was left. But Phaedrus showed that it's impossible to do
that. Human intuition, or Quality, selected only those hypotheses that
had any chance of succeeding.
Stop burping bull at me! Be serious. I'm trying to be.
Don't you understand that the levels are here to solve that puzzle?
I understand the levels to be a useful approach to evaluating which
patterns are better.
And there's that word again, "useful". When something is useful, you can
use it for your own agenda, and when it doesn't suit you, you can just
stop using it.
I'm not in it for "useful". If it's just "useful", I wouldn't go near it.
In other words, I don't think you said *anything* with that. You were
just trying to smooth things over and sidestep the issue at hand.
We can now recognize that the earth have been around since it formed.
Well, it is not round, and it might have been farther from a perfect sphere
prior to the shape we have determined it to be in modern times.
and your seriousness hit a new low.
Life has been evolving at its own pace and now we're here to *know* it.
Interesting.
Was that serious? I hope so, but I won't hold my breath.
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.
How do you know that?
and now you're back to playing with words I see.
That old joke about "known" being the only measure of reality is just bull.
Forget it!
I don't know the joke.
In 20 years, everyone will laugh.
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.
Cant the social level label something food?
No, the social level is about cooperating. A social pattern can't label
anything, it just is.
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.
I'm not blaming any thing.
So what would you call it then? You're attributing the split of gravity
into two different forms, which you think is not real, to science.
Another aspect, and I'm still trying to be serious, if you think that
gravity was created by the theory, literally *created* when Newton wrote
down his formula. Did the earth start spinning around the sun there and
then?
And Copernicus who centuries earlier knew that the earth and the planets
spun around the sun? Now when we know that, was gravity created then
instead? But in the Muslim parts of the world, they knew more about
astronomy even earlier, so did the earth spin around the sun in those
countries, but not in Europe?
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?
Jump. Jump. Jump.
This is obvious an experiment that gives you satisfaction. It doesn't
work for me, so I can't make that determination.
Can't or won't?
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.
In meditation I have seen the flow of thoughts, so I have developed
an ability to laugh at workings of my puny mind. And other minds
too.
So now you're laughing at me, very serious...
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
