Marsha, (Mark, Andre,) I have been curious about this 'unpatterned' for a while, Marsha. A number of questions come to mind, and I would say the most intriguing to me at the moment is: can I also see this as a VERB? If one were to scour my previous posts there would be a little tid-bit about death... I am very glad for such a thing/event, death! But still, it is weird: I can't be sure it is meaningful. Anyway, we were talking of unpatterned as an adjective, in reference to a noun: Quality.
Marsha, you said, "i do practice mindfulness throughout the day and I meditate. If you would like to know what that experience is like learn it for yourself." I don't know that I care to know very much. This was not what what I was getting at. What I was getting at was the verbs in your paragraph on Wallace and meditation. When I had questioned you, "how then do you 'take a rest'?", it was basically the same question I had asked Ham, which went roughly, 'how am I empowered to *do* merely by being able to sense?' Ham believes in 'will' and 'choice', his 'I', but I don't see how his essentialism makes room for such. I had told Ham that, amidst the unknown - I am adding this now though, the 'unknown' bit: amidst the unknown, I am, via faithe, in Something-is. Where faithe is a verb, and where something-is is my fundament, because 'nothing' - which I shouldn't even utter because it can only be a misleading label for a something which is dwarfed by a greater something --- thus a true and concrete 'nothing' is ... what? Maybe since I have re-appropriated faithe I can also re-appropriate 'blasphemous'. Now, your unpattern does no violence to this solitary a priori, intellectual restriction of mine, so we have come to this. But I don't yet know what you mean by 'unpatterned'. I might here think, which I haven't done until now - and which therefore might be a significant step... of an analogy. Something is. This must be true. For ever and ever, if you will. Now, if I think of this in the simplest way I can imagine, it gets close to 'nothing', but it doesn't get there. 'unpatterned' seems as good a choice as any! But, something-is, as I sense it here, or as I am aware of it now, is significantly not-like that - at least not all of it! So, the analogy: 'unpatterned' is the lowest energy state of something-is. But I don't know if this is in accord with your understanding and intuition. And we may have already introduced another pattern, energy. If not two, state. If not three, ... Anyway, this is the path of building a metaphysics, via physics, from scratch. Perhaps it is doomed. Perhaps it could work. But I can rest on 'something-is'. But! 'Rest' is a verb. And I was not always able to do it. And even now, I am not anywhere near fully able to reign in my biological responses, nor my thoughts, certainly not immediately; I don't even know that that is a goal for which I should entertain any hope; it doesn't seem to bother me that I don't even care. Anyway, to the extent that I can 'rest', it requires a willful choice by me - a me that has a complete independence of sorts, an independence within constraints. And what's more, as I have described to you before, faithe is the greater verb encompassing all particular patterns of verb, such as 'rest'. Which is to say, 'rest' doesn't come if the faithe I am really *doing* is not-rest. And of course this is complicated by the fact that everything happens so fast, and it seems I am always doing way more than one thing at a time(!). Next, you admit of a you, and you admit of patterns. This seems to be exactly congruent to the procedure I employ. Amidst the unknown, I am, via faithe, in Something-is. I jump from something-is to I am. You jump from 'unpatterned' to 'patterned'. Is this a proper comparison? The trouble begins. Let me go back to the beginning. I do not know what you mean by 'unpatterned'. But let's leave that alone, at least for now. The question I have: what is the relation between patterned and un-patterned? You have used these words to modify both 'Quality' and 'experience'. I am not trying to pick a fight about this, seems fine at first blush, but - and this is in conjunction with the first long conversation I had with you, when you said something like, 'it's all process' - since 'process' is a verb, I just want to reduce your language to pattern and un-pattern, as verbs. My question is then translated: how takes place pattern, and how takes place un-pattern? Whether nouns or verbs, how can pattern arise out of un-pattern? Or, how can un-pattern arise out of pattern? Marsha: "I find patterned experience to be a overlay onto the unpatterned." [Tim] Marsha, it is very impressive how far you can push this! I think you will see that it has served you well. But, the avoidance of verb, at least between patterned and unpatterned... well, let me ask: is this a flip-flop from your understanding of process? Either way, the question is, what is the process, the physics, of 'to overlay' - which verbiage, to be sure, you avoided? Without a verb I find this precisely useless. However, if you incorporate a verb, I think you will see how your work pays off. 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. [Tim] But now I see two places in which you give outlet to dynamism: "we participate [as individuals]", and "static patterns ... participate...". However, I say 'dynamism', because I still see no outlet for action. I see 'participate' as a re-action. But from whence comes action? How does the 'energy' get in, if you will? Is this just the way it IS? The 'energy', if you will (you have never said this word), and the pattern and un-pattern, have always been, and will always be, and it just does what it does, and if you are to be aware it is just because that is what it did, and if you are to be un-aware, that too is just because that is what it did? Is this your 'process'? If it is, at least I will be able to say I have understood it. But I don't think that is what you are looking for either. Marsha: The MoQ explains the relationship between dynamic and static experiences. Buddhism offers techniques to get you to the experience. James didn't know much about mindfulness or meditation. [Tim] 1) again, in the formal arena I have no experience, so i can't really talk about James or radical empiricism. 2) "Buddhism offers techniques to get you to the experience." --- very impressive! You almost do away with the verbs entirely: 'experience' has become a noun and 'offers' can be read as a passive re-action. But by so doing, if that is what you have done, you have rendered 'techniques' illusory. If you can not choose whether you apply or do not apply such techniques, they are re-actions of myriad pattern, but not techniques: from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1975: "*Technique* n *1:* the manner in which technical details are treated (as by a writer) or basic physical movements are used (as by a dancer); also: ability to treat such details or use such movements <good piano ~> *2a:* a body of technical methods (as in a craft or in scientific research) *b:* a method of accomplishing a desired aim" what fine fortune; good choice of word, Marsha. As '2a' is how you have used it, I will treat it last. Of course '2b' is what I am trying to convince you to submit to. And '1', if you would rather use '1' than '2a' I would love to see how you get rid of the verbs! Now, back to '2a'. If I am to read: 'Buddhism offers a body of technical methods to get you to the experience.', and if I am to understand 'methods' as a noun summarizing the 'process' of re-action to ... then you still must explain the 'energy'. You have given it all to 'Buddhism'. And 'Buddhism' is a static pattern, right? Marsha, it is your choice to do so, if that is your desire, your aim, and I don't think anyone will ever be able to give you a proof of reality that will make you flip (I don't see why 'flop' need be carried). I have read one thing by James, just recently, 'the will to believe'. The thing is, from your position, neither can you deny to me, certainly not by proof, that you have not made a willful choice, a leap of faithe, to believe that you have no will. Neither can you prove to me that I do not will the discrimination of the 'energy'. So again, what is 'pattern'? IF it is absolute, then you must abandon relative. If it is relative, then there must be will. It is that which can will that is an 'I'. The choice is yours. Marsha: "Mindfulness is the desired experience." [Tim] By whom is it desired? Marsha: "Mindfulness expands all patterned processes." [Tim] This is a very intriguing idea! 'Mindfulness' as not only an experience, but a physics too! So, when you said, after I said, which dmb said - quoting RMP: > "[RMP] "The difference between a good mechanic and a bad one, like the > difference between a good mathematician and a bad one, is precisely this > ability to SELECT ..." [Marsha] Okay. Do you mean it?! Do you grant to yourself the absolute autonomy to 'select' - of course, constraining yourself to the 'possible'? But we're not quite done: You had asked: "[Marsha] So what is intellect?" [Tim] I guess if I had to say, at the fore it would be the ability to 'select' from the range of the possible, that which would attain the desired goal; and, I cannot leave out, wisdom, which I might think of as the convergence of intellect and Morality (= Quality), is the ability to select from the range of the possible, the goal which is best. So, I had said: >"[Tim] But, third, and I would say this is 'the important idea' regarding your > interjection now, is that this dynamic aspect is not a mere PASSIVE > thing which happens to (a flowing static) you: you are integral in it." To which you replied: "[Marsha] True if one is aware of it. It's passive if outside of awareness." [Tim] But, to be sure, are you agreeing that there is an autonomous, interdependent 'I' enabling you to exercise control over your awareness - at least within the constraints of reality and your ability? and finally, you said: "[Marsha] DQ is sq, sq is DQ. Most of us know this, ..." [Tim] I haven't seen any evidence that anyone other than you knows this! But this is not to say that I dismiss it!! Far from it (now! I was pretty dismissive until I got near to this point in my response, I must admit)!!! I don't know what you intended by it. I would say that I don't see any way that that could be true 'in the same respect' - that is, according to Aristotle's law of non-contradiction, A and not-A cannot both be true at the same time, in the same place, and in the same respect. But if you know this intuitively, I wouldn't lightly abandon it. If this is part of a physics of mindfulness... Anyway, it does seem that it might line up with the idea of a personal (or impersonal) God: when you are acting she is letting you act upon her, and then when she acts upon you, you get patterned...? So let me rephrase my question: Not how do you, but CAN *you* 'take' (a rest)? Tim -- [email protected] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service. 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
