Hi Mark,
It seems you cannot understand the difference between an objective, independent existence and a relative, interdependent existence? Well, I shall not be rushed into presenting a Tractatus, but at the very least a relative, interdependent existence will not require a primary source or a soul. Marsha On Mar 6, 2012, at 11:55 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 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
