Happy Winter Solstice, Marsha --
Greetings Ham,
I have both the terms 'value' and 'quality' representing experience.
I have not attempted to present a cosmology, but an explanation of
static patterns of value (patterned experience) as I understand them.
I find their investigation the most revealing.
Reality = Experience(unpatterned/patterned). Experience, with a
capital 'E', is unpatterned, and may be accepted as unpatterned or
patterned. Humanity it seems, for pragmatic purposes, has evolved
to function by reliance on patterns. The pattern labelled 'self',
upon investigation through mediation, I have come to see as primarily
a flow of bits and pieces of patterns (conceptual & perceptual).
I understand the 'self' to be a continuous, experiential processing
rather than independent entity.
All in my humble opinion, of course.
Well, we'll call it Marsha's ontology or epistemology, instead of cosmology.
There are still several aspects of it that are problematic for me.
(Incidentally, Mark has agreed to provide a similar outline of his ontology,
although apparently he needs more time to compose it.)
You speak of "parts", "bits" and "pieces" being patterned (presumably by
the experiencing mind); but you don't say how these fragments originate or
where they come from. I assume the patterns themselves are either
independent of man or "conceived" or perceived through man's experience. If
these 'sub-patterns' are "pieces of Quality" (e.g., SQ), do they exist
independently prior to their assembly into discrete patterns, or do they
constitute a holistic reality which does the fragmenting? (Possibly it
would help if you could provide an example of such a "bit" or "piece".)
Also, if the subjective self is an "experiential process" rather than an
independent entity, what ties the events of that process together so that
experience is proprietary to a specific individual? In other words, how do
you account for the experiencing subject being unique unto itself -- its own
psyche so to speak -- without an external organizing agent? If DQ is the
source of all this differentiation, why does existence need an experiential
subject? Conversely, if Experience is the differentiator, why is "a flow of
bits and pieces" even necessary? Sorry Marsha, but the dynamics of this
experiential process still elude me.
Perhaps the most fundamental question is: What does your meditation reveal
about the nature of Ultimate Reality? I know this takes you beyond the
bounds of differentiated space/time existence; yet, an ontological concept
isn't complete without a suggested source or cause of experience. Maybe I'm
asking too much, but the formula 'Reality = Experience' is sinply
insufficient to account for the 'what', 'how' and 'why' of our experiential
reality, let alone Ultimate Reality. If it's any consolation, Marsha, I
have the same complaint with regard to RMP's so-called metaphysics.
Kindly keep in mind that I'm not asking any questions that I haven't
answered for myself in developing the philosophy of Essence. My answers
will be forthcoming at the proper time.
Have a merry weekend yourself, whatever you choose to celebrate.
Essentially yours,
Ham
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
