Hi Marsha
Lots of people seem to dislike your ever-changing patterns of SQ. Do you
really mean this,
or are you saying that all static patterns are temporary, they endure for a
while, but then
they will eventually always (ever) change and cease to be experienced or
change into
a new and different static pattern. All patterns evolve and change, often
into new
patterns. Also even an unchanging pattern is processing out in some way in
terms
of moving in space-time or transferring energy to and from the environment.
Is this
what you are saying or are you saying something else?
Seems to me that in experience any static pattern is never complete, take a
horse,
we notice some qualities about it and not others, as we continue to
experience a
set of patterns we might call a horse, the experience keeps changing, we
notice new
static qualities and stop noticing others, the qualities transcend what we
actually
notice in any moment, Pirsig talks in ZAMM about the filters of experience
and how
we cannot notice all the qualities that are potentially available to
experience. So
all static patterns are always 'on the move' in some way. Is that what you
are
trying to capture with your ever-changing? Not to mention quantum
fluctuations
and interference patterns of potential non-actual particles, to open up what
physicists
think about waves and patterns. Waves are both static and dynamic at the
same time for
sure.
All the best
David M
-----Original Message-----
From: David Harding
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 12:07 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [MD] theories of truth (Open letter to Horse at start)
djh:
Marsha will actively claim that she doesn't care about what folks (in
particular dmb) think..
Marsha:
What I said was that dmb is not my moral or intellectual compass. I
am interested everyone's opinion, but do not find dmb's analogy more
significant than anyone else's.
djh:
A quick search of the archives here for the phrase "I don't care what
you think." - except for three messages - all the rest (fourteen) are
from you (or repeats of something you've written) to someone else.
This lack of care for intellectual patterns of folks on here results in
a lack of change or improvement of your opinion. As said previously -
it's ironic, considering your definition of static patterns includes
the term of 'ever-changing'.
Marsha:
You didn't offer the context, so I don't know if the statements
extracted from your search pertain to dmb or intellectual patterns, so
let me put it like this: I don't care (to be concerned or solicitous;
have thought or regard.) what dmb thinks. As I stated, dmb is not my
moral or intellectual compass. I am _interested_ (curious) in
everyone's opinion, but that does not mean that I must accept those
opinion's. As for intellectual patterns, I am tremendously _interested_
in intellectual patterns, but feel no need to be attached to them.
djh:
What does context matter? If you actively claim to not care about what
someone thinks, then this is ugly and low quality not matter the context.
Even if you disagree with someone, the act of disagreeing is a form of
caring pretending otherwise is just ugly.
As stated previously, you misunderstand non-attachment to patterns as a
simple change in mindset - a change in mindset that involves thinking
static patterns are 'ever-changing'. But this change of mindset isn't
non-attachment - it's just an easy excuse to not care about intellectual
patterns and their fundamentally static nature. Dmb's right; you do
play games. You play games by undercutting every intellectual
disagreement people have with you by just not caring about what they're
saying and pass this rejection off as some kind of Mystical insight.
This doesn't result in Dynamic Quality but as a result of your lack of
care for the static nature of static patterns - chaos.
Marsha:
Do you have a specific question, because I can make no clear sense of
these two paragraphs. You seem to be making a whole lot of assumptions
that I cannot relate to. It also seems you are assuming one truth: yours.
I have read too much Krishnamurti, Nietzsche, Pirsig, and various Buddhist
and other texts, along with a whole lot of thinking on the subject, to
play the one truth game. Neither you, or dmb, is my intellectual or moral
compass. I am interested in hearing your ideas, especially your ideas
about the MoQ, but not your petty ideas about me.
Do you really think 'intellectual disagreement' is unusual?
If you have a question, I will try to explain my present position on the
subject.
Marsha
djh:
There might not be one truth, but there is one universal static quality. In
line with this - there is high and low static quality. If you think it is a
good idea to claim that static quality patterns are ever-changing then,
being a philosophical discussion board - this, like all ideas, is open for
discussion. Specifically, we can discuss whether this idea is high or low
quality. So - Your idea of static patterns as 'ever-changing' is low quality
as it goes against the fundamentally static nature of static patterns.
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
