On Jul 1, 2011, at 4:40 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > On Jul 1, 2011, at 3:49 AM, Jan-Anders Andersson wrote: > >> >> 30 jun 2011 kl. 21.07 Marsha wrote: >> >>> On Jun 28, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Jan-Anders Andersson wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Marsha >>>> >>>> Thanks for your humble answer. >>>> >>>> 28 jun 2011 kl. 15.41 Marsho wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Jun 28, 2011, at 1:40 AM, Jan-Anders Andersson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Marsha >>>>>> >>>>>> 27 jun 2011 kl. 18.44 sMarsha wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Not to be repeating myself, I neither accept the notion of freewill, >>>>>>> nor reject it. Same goes with determinism and causation. I accept >>>>>>> that these are conventional (static) notions, but not Ultimately real. >>>>>>> While living within a conventional culture it seems wise to sustain >>>>>>> social and biological patterns whenever necessary for one will be held >>>>>>> responsible to that level's "moral" code (laws and punishment. ) >>>>>> >>>>>> Even if you neither accept nor reject it. I really would like to >>>>>> understand what you mean with "The notion of Free Will". Please. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jan-Anders >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Marsha, >>>>> >>>>> It means whatever it conventional means. What is the meaning of the >>>>> pattern named Justice? How would you describe its meaning? How would >>>>> you describe the meaning of any pattern. I understand static patterns >>>>> to represent a collection of interdependent, ever-changing particular >>>>> momentary events (process) which constantly change as they arise, abide >>>>> and pass away: and as they are continually altered by an individual?s >>>>> static history and the dynamics of the event. I have mentioned before >>>>> that I tend also to think of patterns, pattern(x) for instance, to >>>>> include all-that-is opposite-from-non-pattern(x). That may include a >>>>> dictionary definition. - The horns of a rabbit might be a static notion >>>>> or pattern. >>>>> >>>>> How well do you think you understand my explanation? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Marsha >>>> >>>> Not really sure. You intend to sell a Norwegian Blue Parrot? >>>> >>>> Try again, please. >>>> >>>> Jan-Anders >>> >>> >>> >>> Jan-Anders, >>> >>> Within this conventional reality, I tend to think of patterns of value not >>> as fixed or >>> frozen or reified, but as events or processes, much more fluid and >>> relational. >>> Defining a spov as all that is opposite-from-non-pattern keeps them closer >>> to >>> experience in the conventional sense. imho >>> >>> >>> Marsha >> >> Hi Marsha >> >> I wonder if you remember my earlier posts some year ago when I described how >> we can prolong the Kantian questioning of the perceptions that we got and >> how it is separated from the the object (a table) per se? >> >> We can put another table upon the first table and find that there are things >> that we can say about the table per se as it has a RELATION to the other >> table and that it is this relation between them that is undeniable and >> objectively exists as we can prove it by comparing them to each other. >> Positivism.. comparing, measuring, creating a relation to a standard ruler >> or something like that. This is also what Descartes did when he put his own >> thinking in RELATION to his own thinking and found that to make a relation >> there must exist real relative objects. Cogito ergo sum... >> >> The relation between fixed patterns are the interesting thing, not so much >> the patterns per se. But the patterns are important in the same way as >> letters and combinations of letters are making words and sentences. Just >> because the meaning of a word or a sentence can be discussed and make people >> laugh doesn't mean that also the letters themselves have to be funny. >> >> Quality is very interesting just as static patterns. Dynamic patters like >> evolution and growth, drama and soap or just normal living in either a >> romantic or classic view, conscious or unconscious, about art, arete, >> quality, are ways of experiencing and better understanding The Quality. Our >> goal is to better understand and dance with Quality. RMP's contribution with >> the MOQ and the 4 levels are very useful, isn't it? >> >> May I? >> >> Right? Left? East? >> >> Jan-Anders > > > Greetings Jan-Anders, > > Off the top of my head... No way do I experience patterns as a fixed ideals. > They are ever-changing, impermanent and relative. Another reason I like the > all that is opposite-from-non-pattern(x) is because it represents a whole. > Using justice again, both the foreground (justice) and the background > (non-justice) are present. One is less likely to isolate or privilege the > foreground over the background, and also less likely to substantiate the > foreground (justice). The relationships are always present. > > Yes, the four levels are extremely useful. But for me the emphasis is how to > break the natural tendency to reify. The subject-object habit needs to be, > at least, loosened. Replacing the word object with the word pattern just > doesn't cut it. Of course this opposite-from-non-pattern strategy is still > an intellectual exercise, and needs experience to reinforce it. Meditation. > imho As far as letters go, A, whether it be a letter, a word or a concept, > is always in relation to non-A; that's whether the relationship is > acknowledged or not. The either/or-subject/object way of defining the world > is expanded. > > > Marsha > > > ___
J-A, To put it more firmly, I find nothing to exist that is fixed, discrete or permanent, not even in the nature of ghostly patterns 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
