Hi Marsha, You seem to be using your patterns as objects. Am I wrong here? I do not see how you are making the patterns something different. Even objects can change, so that does not mean anything different. It would seem that your are simply performing a word change from "objects" to "patterns". How are they different? We see a pattern on a rug, because it repeats itself. That is what a pattern is. What is it about your patterns that provides such repetition. How is it that you undergo pattern recognition?
Just seeking clarification for my own understanding. Mark On 3/6/12, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mar 6, 2012, at 3:35 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I find it interesting that our beloved Marsha, who has consistently denied >> her selfness, now denies her ability to form opinions, as well. After >> reviewing Mark's analysis of her March 4 dissertation on feelings and >> their ownership, Marsha responded: >> >>> I don't know enough to form an opinion. It is extremely interesting, >>> though, >>> and I hope to learn more. >> >> One can only wonder what all those quotes posted from the Vedanta and >> Buddhist scholars are intended to express if not her opinion. Marsha has >> certainly formulated her own opinion of what a SOM pattern is, since >> "ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent, static >> patterns of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value" has >> become the mantra that identifies her. > > Hello Ham, > > You must have been reading my thoughts, for I have surely been thinking > about you, and hoping you would find a way to do what you do so well. > > I would like to comment on the term "SOM pattern". For the expression seems > both true and false. The mind does seem to have evolved to reify ALL useful > experience into objects of conception & perception; it is a very insidious > tendency. I do believe my definition of static patterns helps to move one's > ideas about "objects" from discrete, bounded, objective entities to ones of > pragmatically formed, recursive, interdependent "patterns of value > (processes)". > > And, yes, I have found much useful detail presented by Vedanta and Buddhist > scholars. It often surprises me how clearly they present very difficult and > strange (to the Western way of thinking) ideas. But always I believe one > should continually check and verify. > > > 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
