Mark, Your questions seem in such earnest that I've decided for the answers to meaningful for you that you should answer them for yourself.
Thanks. Marsha On Dec 18, 2010, at 4:14 PM, 118 wrote: > Hi Marsha, > Conversation below. > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 12:19 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> >> On Dec 18, 2010, at 2:19 PM, 118 wrote: >> >>> Hi Andre, Marsha, >>> >>> Mark: >>> I will have to agree with Andre, that saying DQ is SQ is >>> counterproductive. >> >> Marsha: >> It is the way I know it: Quality(unpatterned/patterned). > > [Mark] > So, you make a division between patterned and unpatterned. This could > be useful for you. Are you able to derive a metaphysics based on that > division? Do they switch around? Is the unpatterned DQ and the > patterned SQ to use our symbols of MoQ? So we have the unpatterned, > does the brain make the patterns? Do the patterns make the brain? Or > is everything completely out of our control? How does free will enter > in to the patterned/unpatterned dichotomy? You must have thought > about this. If not, that is fine too, but division is necessary to > explain. >> >> >>> Mark: >>> Yes, they are both descriptions within Quality, and the divide is >>> an intellectual one, but that is what MoQ is all about. >> >> Marsha: >> I find patterned experience to be a overlay onto the unpatterned. >> > [Mark] > How would you define patterned v unpatterned? >> >>> Mark: >>> Saying that they are the same does not add to our creation of >>> a meaningful metaphysics. >> >> Marsha: >> My primary, meaningful metaphysics is Quality(unpatterned experience/ >> patterned experience. > > [Mark] > How would you explain this meaningfulness in words? >> >> >>> Mark: >>> As such, DQ is SQ is a meaningless statement. >> >> Marsha: >> It represents my experience of Quality. > > [Mark] > Are you separating yourself from Quality? Is it something that you > experience or is it something that creates the you that experiences? > I am a little confused by your use of "my". >> >> >>> Mark: >>> We have created two parts for a reason. >> >> Marsha: >> Usefulness? But that should not prevent from looking beyond >> apparent usefulness. > > [Mark] > Sure, what would you consider to be something beyond apparent > usefulness? What provides you meaning that is beyond usefulness. If > something is not useful, does it have meaning to you? If the concept > of God is not useful to you, does it still have meaning to you? >> >> >>> Mark: >>> No need to say the distinction doesn't exist, we created it, so it does >>> exist, in its most absolute form. They Really exist. >> >> Marsha: >> The static patterns of value conventionally exist. >> > [Mark] > I am not sure what you mean by conventionally exist. Does this still > mean they exist, or does the term conventionally mean that they don't > exist? Is it an anti-existence modifier? What things would exist > non-conventionally? Would you devide the world into conventional > existence and non-conventional existence? If not, how does the word > conventional separate kinds of existence. > > So, far as I know, the division between existent and nonexistent is a > useful division. Perhaps there are different kinds of existence such > as the conventional type. How does this fit into the patterned v > unpatterned? Are unpatterned of the unconventional type of > existences? >> >>> Mark: >>> Having said that, it is always useful to acknowledge that we are the >>> creators, so that we do not get stuck in some Truth. >> >> Marsha: >> We? As individuals we participate, but static patterns of value depend >> on a multitude of conditions, and in turn participate as a condition for >> other patterns. > > [Mark] > This sounds kind of like the Buddhist notion of codependent arising. > Did you know that electrons and positron suddenly appear and disappear > from and back to gamma rays? They cannot appear alone, but must > always appear together to conserve the neutrality of charge in our > universe. Is this kind of the pattern participation that you are > pointing to? Kind of a Yin/Yang appearance, that then needs to > consolidate to disappear again? If this appearance of positrons and > electrons last for more than a few thousandths of a second, it could > change the universe. > > Perhaps it was the original appearance of particles out of the flat > line of the universe that is in the process of getting together to > disappear once again. These appearances affect other appearances. If > one tries to separate quarks, it takes so much energy that we just end > up making more quarks. If one tries to pull apart the spring holding > a proton together we end up with more protons, instead of pulling it > apart. Perhaps this is what you mean by conditional participation. > Part of the beauty of symmetry. > > Anyway, so many questions to get an understanding of your > understanding, and so little time. > > Cheers, > Mark >> >> >> >> 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
