On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 3:33 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 1, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 7/1/11 3:35 AM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> 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 >> >> >> Hi Marsha, >> >> I agree Nothing and Existence cancel each other out. One is important >> metaphysically as well as mathematically. >> >> Joe > > > Hi Joe, > > Like Value is the ONE which exists and connects MANY? Isn't that the Tao? > > > Marsha
No, Marsha, that is not the Tao, not even close, imo. Mark > > ___ > > > 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
