[MD] Discrete & Dependent

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Marsha

>> I think you're headed toward Descartes "I think, therefore I am", 
>> aren't you? Since all you can really know is conceptual, everything 
>> else might just be your imagination.
> 
>  No, everything is connected to everything and is ever-changing.   No 
> reason to call me despicable names.  I think the truth makes you 
> uncomfortable.

Ouch, sorry about that. It was not my intention to insult you.

But I'm pretty interested in that "truth" that you think makes me uncomfortable.
What truth is that?

>> But I think the MoQ has something to say about that. Since concept are 
>> intellectual patterns, and intellectual patterns are dependent on all 
>> lower levels, it *proves* that the underlying patterns are just as 
>> real as the intellectual concepts that we do know to be real.
> 
> You wrote "that we do know to be real"  What is this knowing???  And 
> what is this real???   Listen to the words of Lila.

Ok, cut that last part. And you can probably exchange the remaining "real" for 
"phenomenal" if it makes more sense to you.

> I think the four (4) levels are ingenious, perfect in fact.  But I agree 
> there is a problems.  I had to go to Buddhism to make the levels 
> meaningful.  But that meaningful seems to indicate much more than what 
> goes into what bucket.  Four ways of knowing?  Maybe, but that's not 
> quite right either.  I don't know what to say.  Let the author speak.  
> Really!   Or if you think you can explain their significance, please 
> do.  I used the word significance purposefully.

I made a very serious attempt at explain the level's significance in my latest 
essay "The levels undressed". Saving the discreteness and dependency was a high 
priority. It's on www.moq.org and I urge you to read it if you're interested.

	Magnus