Hi Marsha, OK, if I had the answers I wouldn't be asking them on in this forum. I am here to learn from others. But, I understand, they are difficult to formulate. I can accept that. I will continue to search elsewhere on this forum. Meaningfulness grows with experience.
Thanks, Mark On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 1:36 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > 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
