[MD] the meaning Hobbes's meaning

[MarshaV]

At 12:19 PM 3/4/2009, you wrote:

>On Mar 4, 2009, at 5:13:10 AM, MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net> wrote:
>At 07:59 AM 3/4/2009, you wrote:
> > > At 07:08 AM 3/4/2009, you wrote:
> > > >Marsha,
> > > >
> > > >I like your description of "self."
> > > >
> > > > > The self is an ever-changing,
> > > > > collection of interrelated and interconnected, inorganic,
> > > biological,
> > > > > social and intellectual, static patterns of value responding to
> > > > > Dynamic Quality.
> > > >
> > > >I take it this means you believe the self is no illusion even though
> > > Pirsig
> > > >and some others say it is.
> > > >
> > > >Platt
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Platt,
> > >
> > > The self is empty of independent (inherent) existence, therefore it
> > > is an illusion but,,, conventionally it is user-friendly and
> > > useful. - Where would I hang this _I_ if I didn't have this
> > > conventional, but illusionary self? Who would I dance with all day
> > > if I didn't have this illusionary self? Who would create this play
> > > that is life?
> > >
> > >
> > > Marsha
> >
> >Hi Marsha,
> >
> >Is "self" then a matter of expediency -- a useful figment of imagination,
> >like some find God to be?
> >
> >Platt
>
>Platt,
>
>As far as I know, self isn't other than an ever-changing, collection
>of interrelated and interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and
>intellectual, static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
>
>Maybe what is of interest is what pattern is active at any given
>nano-second. Maybe it is interesting, but maybe not. The
>God-static-pattern-of-value is not meaningful to me.
>
>Marsha
>
>/
>
>Hi Marsha,
>
>I like your description of the self as well, as it is dynamic and 
>not separate.  I can feel the self, but like Quality, when I 
>describe it, I pin it down into something and have to leave the rest 
>of it out.  There is, perhaps, a useful concept in quantum mechanics 
>known as state vector collapse.  While I don't claim to understand 
>the math, my understanding of what it states is that:  everything 
>exists in a probabilistic state.  As soon as we measure something, 
>it is reduced to a single state (it collapses); the act of measuring 
>it by the observer creates this collapse.  In the same way, as soon 
>as we define Quality (an act I believe Phaedrus was tormented by) we 
>collapse it into a single reality having to forgo the rest.  The 
>self may be the same thing.  As soon as I collapse it descriptively 
>I am left with one static notion, rather than the dynamic one, which 
>may be an endless collection of static ones..
>
>I know I am a neophyte in this forum, and that this has already 
>probably been discussed (collapsed), I just wanted to bring some of 
>the notions of physics up (again?) to see if science has any bearing on MoQ.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Willblake2


Hello Willblake2,

In spite of holding my breath and stomping my foot, I love science 
and math.  I'm sorry I didn't realize that when I was ten-years-old, 
but that's the way it goes.  Can you imagine Michio Kaku knew he 
wanted to be a theoretical physicist at age 10?  Wow!

I would hope that no matter how many go-arounds a topic cycles on 
this forum, each time it offers a little more insight as we all move 
towards Dynamic Quality and an increased understanding of the MOQ by 
our interactions with each other.  And bless those who throw a wrench 
into the works to make us rethink our position.  For with their help 
we gain an opportunity to broaden and deepen our understanding.

Thank you.


Marsha



.
_____________

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