Mark, You're asking for the source of static patterns? Please! I don't go for that 'first cause/primary source' stuff. I'm with the Buddha in this regard:
'If this is, that comes to be; from the arising of this, that arises; if this is not, that does not come to be; from the stopping of this, that is stopped.' - Buddha As I wrote previously, from my point-of-view your collection of questions do not seem not to make sense. Marsha On Feb 21, 2012, at 11:28 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marsha, > Yes, I can tell that you did not understand my questions since your > answer did not address them. I will stop asking you questions. > Regards, > Mark > > On 2/20/12, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Mark, >> >> Sorry, but from my point-of-view your collection of questions do not seem >> not to make sense. Conventionally real would equate to stating something is >> a static pattern, not ultimately real. Free will and determinism are >> intellectual static patterns of value, but "To the extent that one's >> behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice. >> But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, >> one's behavior is free." (RMP, LILA: Chapter 12). >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> On Feb 20, 2012, at 4:48 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Marsha, >>> That is an interesting opinion. It does indeed lie within your MoQ as >>> I have become accustomed to from your posts. Although I do not quite >>> see how you tie morality into it. That word seems out of place in >>> your paragraph below. >>> >>> The difference is more easily presented in terms of free-will. The >>> use of patterns seems to deny such a thing, if I read your post >>> correctly. Is free will a pattern, or is it DQ? Or perhaps it is a >>> third thing altogether. The quote you present of Pirsig's is rather >>> strange. It creates three things. DQ, sq, and the individual. Could >>> you perhaps explain why you present this triad? What is it about the >>> individual that separates him/her from DQ. I am currently pondering >>> this as well. >>> >>> I am not sure what you mean by conventionally. Is a squirrel not real >>> outside of convention? When a fox catches a squirrel is that within >>> the conventional reality? What is it that forms this convention? It >>> would seem that you are making a distinction in realities here, but I >>> am not quite sure what that is. Could you provide me a little more >>> depth to this? Is Quality conventional or unconventional when we are >>> pointing towards it. What would make it unconventional or >>> conventional in your view? >>> >>> Finally, in terms of your patterns. What is the source for these >>> patterns? Do they exist outside of the need for patterns? If the >>> source is our need for them, why do we need them? If they have no >>> inherent existence, what does have inherent existence? If nothing has >>> inherent existence, then patterns have as much inherent existence as >>> anything else. In fact, the term inherent existence can be dropped >>> completely, or a pattern can be said to have inherent existence >>> "relative" to something else. If we use this defenition for inherent >>> existence, we can say that patterns do have inherent existence. >>> Otherwise you seem to leave yourself in a vacuum of sorts, and life is >>> anything but a vacuum. >>> >>> Why would we gravitate and accept something that doesn't exist? How >>> can we differentiate between "I" and "You", for it seems that this is >>> what we do. The notion that I would be posting a response to you >>> would not make sense in you metaphysics, and this conversation would >>> have already been determined before we got involved due to previous >>> patterns. With your pattern analogy, how do you get away from >>> determinism? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> 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
