[MD] Discrete & Dependent

[MarshaV]

At 04:52 AM 9/22/2008, you wrote:
>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?

Greetings Magnus,

To me all significance is found in the nature of patterns.  And I'm 
afraid I am not the one to explain this to you.  In some ways, it 
does undermine "science" as we "know" it.  (I think you can say it 
undermines economics too.)

Directly experiencing phenomenon is possible, but requires awareness 
which happens seldom.  It's mostly the patterns that cause the 
confusion.  I have come to understand patterns as the conceptual 
opposite-from-non-(elephants for example).





>>>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.

Phenomenon is there, but not in the patterns.  Within the patterns it 
is only symbolically represented.




>>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.


I did read your paper.  I do not think that additional levels will 
solve the problem.  Again, I see the significance in the nature of 
patterns.  Understanding that nature of patterns changes 
everything.  It totally changes how one relates.  It is betterness.

I do not believe changing the MOQ is the right move.  The MOQ is 
perfect.  One needs to adjust one's own view.  And the way to move 
this along is to understand what is a pattern.

Marsha







.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.