[MD] The MOQ and religions.

[John Carl]

Marsha, Marsha,

You say:


> Unpatterned experience is direct experience without static patterns of
> value.


And right there, I have to quibble with you.

I don't want to, but I have to.

Experience can't be what you describe, either unpatterned or without
staticity.  The very defining of experience requires a static pattern in
order to be experienced.  The idea of "before" is itself a static pattern of
existence relative to time and obviates the pure nullity you postulate, imo.



> 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.
>


Well you can't exactly equate the two dislikes.  I didn't like your
definition of self because it was unwieldy, kludgish and hard to whip out
when needed.  But "unpatterened experience" is far worse because its a
philosophical self-contradiction.

A metaphysics no-no.

But if you think  the words you use are false, then I have to wonder why you
use them?  Isn't the idea of words that we use them  for truth?

I mean, we know when we shoot for the moon we'll miss, but at least it
provides a big fat aim point.

Yours,

John