[MD] The Brujo

[Ham Priday]

On 3/24 at 1:56 PM Marsha wrote:


> This is a very conventional (patterned) way to describe 
> quality/value/experience.  But the pattern is not the experience.
> By the time the explanation arrives the experience is long gone. 
> Hindsight explanations are great, but are not the experience.  I am not 
> advocating throwing out conventions,
> but acquiring the realization that things are not as they seem
> to appear.
> Discussing this conventionally, there is a conceptually
> constructed self and there are conceptually constructed
> objects to be experienced but this is a static patterned
> way of defining reality, a subject-object patterned reality.

OK, everything is a conceptually constructed pattern, including the self.
I assume the self perceives and defines the S/O patterned reality, but
you do not say who or what "constructs" its objects.

> The use of the phrase "I would guess" and "I would think"
> reflects this conventional reality, I am perfectly happy to
> use this convention because it is the way the socially constructed world 
> works.  Within the MOQ there are no
> self and no objects. I have looked into this and I agree with
> this view. ...I can find no I and no self, but only ever-flowing
> experience.  It is ALL quality/value/experience.

So you think, although there is no self to think.  You experience, but there 
are no objects to experience.  "Convention" divides reality into objective 
patterns, yet there are no subjects to establish convention.  And you wonder 
what is troubling me!  Does this really make sense to you, Marsha?

At least Krimel's biochemical/neurological/material event offers an 
epistemological ground for sensation and experience.  Your worldview does 
not.  There is no 'modus operandi' that I can discern in your theory, nor do 
you suggest any means by which proprietary experience arises from insentient 
patterns.  When I ask what "experience" is, you give me an evasive 
equivalency statement:

> Experience is experience, value is value, quality is quality,
> and all synonyms.

Three hours later, as if you realized that was not an answer, you come back 
with a valuistic description:

> A second thought...  I think the most an experience
> might be is pleasant, unpleasant, or neither, as in neutral.

This doesn't pass for a definition, Marsha.  I think you realize that it's 
impossible to define experience in the absence of subjects and objects, 
which you've rejected.

When asked if you disagree with my epistemology, you recite the customary 
mantra which provides no additional insight as to what you think cognizant 
experience may be:

> Yes I disagree with this point-of-view as an epistemology. I experience 
> reality as an ever-changing, collection of
> interrelated and interconnected, inorganic, biological,
> social and intellectual, static patterns of value responding
> to Dynamic Quality.  Quality/value/experience is a constant flow.

I don't mean to be critical, Marsha, but your explanation is a 
never-changing collection of words relating to RMP's multi-level thesis that 
tells me nothing about how you perceive the world or what you think reality 
is.

> Well, I can always slip into using conventional language
> where I can jabber away to my hearts content.  But,,, like Socrates, I 
> know I know nothing.

I suspect you know more than you're telling me.  But until you're willing to 
reveal it, I can only conclude that you haven't yet worked it all out. 
That's fine; life is a work in process for all of us.  It just disappoints 
me that someone as bright as you, who has clung to the MoQ as long as I have 
and is also acquainted with my philosophy, is unable to express her belief 
system in her own terms.

Thanks for addressing my questions, Marsha.

Kindest regards,
Ham