On Dec 10, 2010, at 6:23 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Marsha, > real quick > Tim > > On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:57:56 -0500, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> said: >> >> On Dec 10, 2010, at 8:08 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> [Tim] >>> so, it seems we can get to: "The critical point, however, is that >>> conscious awareness (sensibility) and the intellect by which it >>> functions are proprietary to the individual self" without (recognizing) >>> a '..."uniform, unchanging, and limitless" Source' called 'essence'. I >>> wonder if you could convince Marsha to incorporate 'proprietary' into >>> her definition of self? I think so: '...interdependent, proprietary, >>> impermanent..." >> >> >> >> Marsha: >> There seems to be a stream of interconnected bit and pieces of pattern, >> but no underlying entity that represents a proprietor. >> >> >> > > [Tim] > well, I don't know if we *need* to bring in 'entity' or the noun form > 'proprietor'. Can 'proprietary' be brought in to your definition if it > functions to denote an impossibility of having two 'collections' (as you > have defined it - off the top of my head: 'ever-changing, > interdependent, impermanent, collections of inorganic, biological, > social, intellectual, static patterns of value') break the bound that > keeps them 'interdependent' in order to become same, identical? Or, > perhaps we could say that the collection is *unique* to you: would this > work? If so, I think we have found an essential common ground with Ham. > > P.S. I went back and looked at the email that got me all bothered when > you didn't respond. I didn't see much Quality there. I'm not sure what > I was thinking. I know that I thought your response would give me a > real clue into your position, and I really was anticipating a response. > But, anyway, I'm sorry for what now appears to be an over-reaction on my > part. > --
Hi Tim, My position keeps going poof. I can adopt a hypothetical, unique, proprietary self for the sake of Ham's Essence Metaphysics, but it does not hold together on investigation. Look, I am a static girl living in a static world; don't see that there's a way around it. That's the way the world has evolved to function. But upon investigation it all collapses. Time, space and self dissolve, and it is analogy/patterns all the way down. Even the Buddhists postulate a continuity of individual consciousness on which is built karma, reincarnation and etc., but it all seems to be built on assumptions. It might be that I have not developed the skills to experience an unbroken continuity, so the best I can accept is Quality(unpatterned/patterned). This is not a denigration of static quality which always seem to have a wondrous existence. Yes the collection of patterns could seem "unique," but based on what other than assumption? Sooo, I don't know... 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
