Sent from my iPad
On Dec 2, 2011, at 1:34 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha, > > Sent laboriously from an iPhone, > Mark > > On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:52 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Greetings Mark, >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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] >>>>> As you know, I have a problem with "patterns" since it seem to rigid >>>>> for me. In my opinion, patterns arise after conceptualization. This >>>>> would draw a line between DQ and conceptualization, which I do not >>>>> believe is quite accurate. But, that is just me. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha: >>>> Here is my understanding of patterns. Please note, though I state >>>> that all patterns are conceptualized, that does not mean that patterns >>>> are conceptual (all concepts). For I do not. Patterns may very well, >>>> at the very least, have a perceptual piece. Here it is again: >>>> >>>> I think it best to consider static patterns of value from two different >>>> points of view. One would be the nature of all patterns: conditionally >>>> co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized. >>>> A second would be by categorization by evolutionary function - >>>> inorganic, biological, social and intellectual – into their four-level, >>>> hierarchical structure. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Mark: >>> Yes, I think I see what you are presenting. I would use a systems >>> approach rather than a pattern approach to convey what I believe you >>> are saying. A system is dynamic, a pattern seems more static to me. >>> >>> Personally, I approach MoQ more from the inside looking out, than the >>> outside looking in. That is, I do not see myself as a pattern, >>> although I can create them. We are not actually devided up into four >>> levels, nor do we need to abide by conditionality. Again, all just my >>> opinion. >>> >>> Cheers, Mark >> >> It is very much a system, or process, when it is understood that static >> quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns. Patterns >> depend upon innumerable causes and conditions (patterns), depend upon parts >> and the collection of parts (patterns), depend upon conceptual designation >> (patterns). !Patterns have no independent existence! Further, these >> patterns represent "what works" depending upon on an individual's static >> pattern of life history. > > Gotcha >> >> I know that you know that there is no inside/outside dichotomy. The >> fundamental nature of static quality is Dynamic Quality. > > Well, here we get into an awareness of Reality as it presents itself to us. > I consider a conceptual framework to be part of reality. So I would say that > the dichotomy is real since we create it. Else wise we are stuck in a system > not of our own doing. What we create conceptually is as real as what causes > us to create it. It is a continuum, if you will. We cannot separate our > musings from everything else. To do so gives us more power than I think we > have. Our thought process is DQ in action, IMO. > > Indeed the split between DQ and sq is a dichotomy. As an analogy, possibly > DQ is that from within, and sq is that from outside. I will have to think > about this a bit to see how the rhetoric works. Hello Mark, I know you've said that you are sick of the sutras, but the Heart Sutra explains that 'Emptiness is form, form is emptiness'. I understand the relationship between DQ/sq to be the same. But this can be, should be, experienced not just conceptualized. There seems to be middle degrees between being a Buddha and being comatose or a newborn baby. It's been said by many that it is right there in front of you, something you've always known. And you don't need mind-altering drugs. Maybe it helps to find encouragement from someone we think we can trust, from someone whose explanation seems real enough to seem possible. But you think on it. And then stop thinking for long enough to see. 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
