[MD] confused

[MarshaV]

At 06:59 AM 10/23/2006, you wrote:
> > At 04:30 AM 10/23/2006, Gav wrote:
> > >i thought static patterns were abstracted from
> > >immediate experience.
> > >am i wrong?
> >
> > MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gav,
> >
> > It seems to me, too.  Do you see a problem with this
> > idea?
> >
>
>hey marsha,
>
>i keep thinking of 'nausea' by sartre.
>in it he describes the experience of sitting looking
>at a familiar tree in a park. on this particular
>occasion he sees something else, not his familiar
>tree; it becomes alien, infinite, horrible even; he is
>not aware of what it is.

So, you throw out that cute, wiggly little question, and I would be 
foolish enough to bite.

I've read a little Sartre, but, for me, he was too pessimistic.  I 
tend to see life as a comedy rather than a tragedy.


>are static patterns conceptual?

Putting aside the fact that the MOQ is a conceptual theory, within 
the MOQ, both Social & Intellectual Levels are described as 
conceptual static quality (MIND).


>i keep thinking of schopenhauer too: the world as will
>and idea.
>
>does a static pattern become a static pattern only
>when we *recognise* it;

There would need to be some 'value' for recognition, and maybe some 
additional value required for the experience to become static quality.


>or do we experience static
>patterns immediately?

I would think daydreaming would be an example of experiencing static 
patterns immediately.


>if we experience them immediately (pre-conceptually)
>then how does this relate to the 'undifferentiated
>aesthetic continuum', which is a synonym for
>pre-conceptual 'Quality' reality.

There is only Quality.


>doesn't a static
>pattern imply differentiation?

It depends on where you're standing.

------

Not having a thorough understanding of Sartre, Schopenhauer or 
Northrop, I really should not have attempted a response.  But I 
did.  I hope others will also respond with more seriousness.

Marsha