Greetings Mark, Sent from my iPad
On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:51 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark: > What I was trying to say about quantum mechanics is that it is a > mathematical description of matter. The notion that matter is > non-local arises from how the math is used. Therefore non-locality is > not a result of matter actually being non-local, it is a result of the > math used to describe it. The problem with physicists (imo) is that > they think that the math equations actually ARE matter. Marsha: Patterns are ever-changing, conditionally codependent, impermanent and conceptually constructed, whether intellectual, social, biological or inorganic. Within the quantum world, there is the measurement problem. And hope for interconnectedness. > Mark: > This is the > same problem we have discussed concerning words and concepts being > more real than what they represent. So when quantum mechanics talks > about the entanglement of matter, they are actually talking about the > entanglement of the equations, not matter. When you compare MoQ to > QM, you are comparing descriptions. One is in words, the other in > math. Marsha: And both signs and symbols representing patterns. > Mark: > The same is true when Buddha speaks of codependent arising. Things do > not actually co-arise, the IDEA of things co-arise. Marsha: Conceptually constructed. > Mark: > These dogmatic > types of "truths" can be very beguiling and cause us to live in a > world where concepts become the real thing. It forces people to live > in a world where they do not believe they exist, because CONCEPTUALLY > no existence can be found. Marsha: Well, I am not a physicist, only an interested observer. Oh-oh, there's that 'measurement problem' smiling at me. We've become entangled. > Mark: > However, when I stub my toe, I know I exist. Marsha: Ouch! Your perceptions and conceptions exist. > Mark: > If it helps someone to conceive of the world as not having > inherent existence, then such a person should use this concept to see > where it takes them. As such, the notion of no inherent existence is > a tool, not a reality. Marsha: Emptiness, too, is empty of inherent existence. > Mark: > This may be what you are speaking of concerning the functionality of > truth. Some people prefer not to really exist, other people love > really existing. The problem with the ego is that it tends to see > itself relative to someone else, not as something in the process of > becoming. People are unhappy if they see someone with more stuff > than they. This is why Buddha tries to convince those seriously > afflicted with this malady that the self does not exist. It is to let > them feel free from what they see as relative existence. Marsha: I exist as a flow of ever-changing, conditionally codependent, impermanent and conceptually constructed patterns within a field of Dynamic Quality. If you want to name that 'self' go ahead, but I find that label confusing because of the 'independent, inherently existing' connotations associated with the term. Your interpreting on behalf of the Buddha is a joke, right? > Mark: > So, Relativism is alive and well; there is no need for its revival. > In fact, it can be considered a disease. Many people think that > quality only arises when they compare things. We, however, have a > different concept of Quality, which does not require comparisons. Marsha: Dynamic Quality is undivideable, undefinable and unknowable. > Mark: > Quality does not have to be relative to something else. It just IS. Marsha: See above... > Cheers, > Mark Cheers, Marsha > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:29 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Mark, >> >> You have ignored my returned questions in most of our discussions for many >> months, as if your interests trump mine. I am tired of what feels like an >> one-sided interrogation. I feel no need to acknowledge your questions. I >> will respond only when I do. >> >> I do not hold the view that all patterns, being relative, are equal. >> According to the MoQ, which has truth (patterns)as relative, patterns may be >> evaluated based on whether they function as inorganic, biological, social or >> intellectual events/processes. The term 'relativism', and there are many >> types within the domain of philosophy, does not inherently exist as 'all >> being equal.'. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> p.s. All theory, including quantum theory, has a metaphysical underpinning. >> Quantum theory is the newest and most dynamic, and still in-process. A >> form of relativism may one day have its own revival. imho >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:28 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Marsha, >>> I thought I answered your questions as they came up, but I guess I thought >>> wrong. My apologies. >>> >>> Non-locality falls out of the statistical nature of quantum mechanics. >>> Sociology treats individuals as statistics which means the individual does >>> not exist locally. It is simply a product of the math used. Nothing >>> cosmic going on there, unless one is wedded to math. Then I suppose one >>> would be convinced that the math is reality. >>> >>> Your "stable pattern are relative only if you want to see them that way. I >>> do not see them that way. There is no need to always be comparing >>> everything. I find that approach to be limited. But, if you have a love >>> for equations, then I can see your need to equate things. Each to his/her >>> own. I do not consider my view to be relative to yours. >>> >>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone, >>> Mark >>> >>> On Nov 27, 2011, at 10:17 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Mark, >>>> >>>> There are serious questions, from me and to you, in this post. They are >>>> the sentences with the questions marks at the end. - What do you think >>>> words are for? What are you searching for? What 'facade' are you talking >>>> about? How does the concept of 'unreal' enter into this dialogue? - You >>>> have generally been ignoring the questions I have presented to you for a >>>> long time. I no longer take your posts to be serious, and no longer feel >>>> the need to answer any of them. >>>> >>>> Btw, Quality may be compared to quantum theory's non-locality. Static >>>> quality exists in stable patterns relative to (that's relative to) other >>>> patterns, where patterns have no independent existence. No hidden >>>> variables, only Quality. >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 25, 2011, at 3:17 PM, MarshaV wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Marsha, >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 25, 2011, at 2:10 PM, 118 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Mark: >>>>>> This is fun. >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> I suspect a mild form of insanity. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 25, 2011, at 9:44 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 25, 2011, at 12:05 PM, 118 wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Marsha, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mark: >>>>>>>> Well I guess this begs the question "where is the real?". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marsha: >>>>>>> You brought the words "real thing" into the conversation. When I wrote >>>>>>> "There is no real thing.", I could be considering that you meant the >>>>>>> word "thing" in an independent, objective sense, or I could be >>>>>>> questioning your use of "real" as in an Absolute sense, or both. Or >>>>>>> maybe I should have disregarded your post,,, again. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mark: >>>>>> I suppose I should ask you "independent" from what? We use the word >>>>>> "objective" to imply detached. I will agree that we are not detached, >>>>>> and that the word can be dropped if you want. It is often used >>>>>> rhetorically to provide a meaningful split between the "subjective" and >>>>>> the "objective". Is this split meaningless to you? If so, I can avoid >>>>>> using it. However, if we start to simplify language, the color it >>>>>> brings turns to shades of grey. >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> I have no idea what you are talking about. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Mark: >>>>>>>> Words are symbols, but perhaps what words convey outside the symbology >>>>>>>> is real. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marsha: >>>>>>> Haven't the slightest idea what this means. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mark: >>>>>> OK, then let me ask the following thought question: What are words used >>>>>> for? This may give a better idea. >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> I do not know for certain. What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Mark: >>>>>>>> If one lives in an unreal world, one is always searching. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marsha: >>>>>>> I live in a provisional, static world interacting with DQ to a varying >>>>>>> degree. I am sorry you are "always searching." >>>>>>> >>>>>> IMark: >>>>>> f your world is provisional, what is it provisional to? >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> I should have said I live in a conventional, static world. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Mark: >>>>>>>> Such searching is also considered unreal, and meaningfulness is lost. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marsha: >>>>>>> What are you searching for? >>>>>> >>>>>> Mark: >>>>>> Many things, but the right here right now is real to me. I see no >>>>>> reason to hide it as if there were something more. It would seem that >>>>>> you operate within a fake world. If a word is not real, then what is >>>>>> it? If provisionality is not real, then where do you find yourself? >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> I meant provincial or conventional world. What _seems to you_ about me >>>>> is your problem because I cannot related to anything you've written. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Mark: >>>>>>>> What has meaning to you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marsha: >>>>>>> It's all Value(Dynamic/static). >>>>>> >>>>>> Mark: >>>>>> Is Value Real to you, or is there something contingent to Value or >>>>>> Quality? >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> I might repeat the positive tetralemma that Jay Garland put together: >>>>> >>>>> Everything is _conventionally_ real. >>>>> Nothing is _Ultimately_ real. >>>>> Everything is both _conventionally_ real and _Ultimately_ unreal. >>>>> Nothing is either _conventionally_ unreal or _Ultimately_ real. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Mark: >>>>>>>> Is there something behind the facade? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marsha: >>>>>>> What facade? >>>>>> >>>>>> Mark: >>>>>> When you say unreal it seems to imply a facade. Is there then no facade? >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> You brought in the word 'unreal'. Do you mean Ultimately unreal? Do you >>>>> know what you mean??? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You've ignored my questions. I've had enough. This is too boring. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Byeeee. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>> 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 > 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
