[MD] The MOQ and religions.

[skutvik at online.no]

John and Marsha

Dec. 24 John said
> > I don't know what is meant by "unpatterned responses".  In fact, the
> > term "un"patterned gives me gas.  It sounds suspiciously like
> > phlogoston to me, something postulated in order to fit a pre-formed
> > view, with no empirical evidence supporting it whatsoever.  If you
> > said, "pre-patterned" with the implication that the human valuing
> > agent (nod to Ham) is going to be doing some patterning in the near
> > future, I'd have an idea what you meant.  But as it is.....

Marsha  
> Unpatterned experience is direct experience without static patterns of
> value.  You do no like my use of 'unpatterned experience', you say to
> hear the term gives you gas, but I remember you didn't like my
> definition of the self either.  Both self and unpatterned experience
> cannot be bound by  words, so I grant you that the words I use to
> refer to either are false.

The term "unpattterned" refers to MOQ's DQ and has become 
Marsha's pet. An un-pet of hers is that words/concepts are the "big 
bad wolves" that destroy the "un-patterned" peace. This is the 
Buddhist inheritance, like the "pointing finger to the moon" as if there 
is a moon without inorganic heavenly body and biological senses 
patterning it and a social language to know it's called something. All 
this buddhist stuff was OK in ZAMM, but in the MOQ it is superfluous 
or directly confusing. 

Then the "self" issue which is more intriguing. It was a hot topic for a 
long time back in the Lila Squad days I guess even before it became 
recorded in the archives. You know, SOM has its SELF-
consciousness monitoring the world and even itself, while the MOQ - 
that has the four levels that constitutes existence can't have one 
overseer that monitors a partitioned "screen" unless we are back in 
SOM. Particularly as the inorganic level well can't be "selfish" 
Methinks it is S/O-intellect that trespasses into MOQ's territory.        
 
Bodvar