[MD] A Lila quote, part one.

[MarshaV]

Ron,

You are very sweet...   

I remember an early question being 'Why can't I sew using a pine needle? 


Marsha
 
 




-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 7:35 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] A Lila quote, part one.

When I was a boy, I was terrible in school. Daydreamer. All I would
fantasize about was a time when I did'nt have to go. I wanted to be free
and roam the woods and fields. When I tracked or just sat and watched
I became emersed in the environment, when I played, or was at 
football practice, I was emersed in the expereince. I did'nt think about
objects isolated in space or subjective interpretaions, I just lived. I just
did.
I thought math , grammer, ect. was bullshit and useless. What do I need that
for?
Nouns..it was a cartoon on saturday morning, schoolhouse rock.
Blah,blah,bla...I want adventure..I want to go dam up the creek and go
swimmin..catch crayfish, water striders....running, playing, laughing,
singing
hangin with my dog Sam. Climbing trees and eating apples. Coming home
by way of the farmer down the roads house to chat with ole Chester and
Hellen
and drink springwater from the barnyard pipe.Salty with sweat and grass 
stains on my cloths..never having once thought about objects as entites
just experience...as it happened.  ..jus livin.

It was when I got older, more trained in school, when I was taught to reduce
things and simplify when I was taught that math and grammar represented
reality
and I needed to correctly represent it, cause thats the way the world IS. I,
like
everyone else, with the help of movies, fantasized about the future, like it
was destined
like it existed only not yet, I longed to be like Luke Skywalker, or
Starbuck and Apollo..
and have adventures in a technological wonderland, with laser blasters and
starships.
I just had to somehow freeze myself, or hop in a time machine or slip into a
time vortex.


But that was all part of the dream of scientific objective realism.

Funny...now I remember how when really young, I would treat everything like
it had
a life of it's own, blades of grass, rocks, my lunch box. When bullies would
take
my stuff and destroy it, I'd weep for those objects like they died. Like it
was a part
of me that they destroyed.




----- Original Message ----
From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2009 6:50:35 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] A Lila quote, part one.

If it is a matter of interpretation, would it matter?



----- Original Message ----
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Wed, October 7, 2009 3:58:42 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] A Lila quote, part one.


Ron,

Would it be better if I asked to be presented with a conventionally-accepted
example of a non-subject/object, intellectual static pattern of value?  


Marsha



-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of MarshaV
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 2:24 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] A Lila quote, part one.


-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 1:18 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] A Lila quote, part one.


Ron:
Since objects are illusions, arent all intellectual patterns 
illusions?

Is'nt the question  raised, couched in objective assumption?

Marsha:
No, patterns are conceptual(I'd say), and everchanging, and interrelated,
and relative, and conventional, and not independent inherently objects.  


Ron:
Reification is an intepretation of intellectual patterns
therefore it depends on how one interprets intellectual
patterns.

Marsha:
Yes, and as Krishnamurti has said, "humans have taken a wrong turn" in their
interpretation.  


Ron:
Since a concrete "thing" or physical "object" does not exist,
It most certainly hangs on the interpretation of experience.
Since we are taught to interpret experience as divided into
subjects and objects, and that objects are "real" it would 
seem s/o intellectual patterns are a learned method of 
interpretation. Reification being a consequence of such 
an interpretation for reification is based on the assumption
that objects are "real".

in short     not this, not that

one can not give examples of s/o intellectual patterns
one can not give examples of non s/o intellectual patterns

they are a matter of interpretation.


Marsha:
Easy for us to say: not this, not that...  How long have we been digging at
this?  For me experience (reality) is basically unpatterned experience and
patterned experience.  UNPATTERNED EXPERIENCE and PATTERNED EXPERIENCE.
After that it is all patterns of value (habits, rituals, interpretations,
and those concepts/symbols that intellect has objectified so they can be
manipulated.)  The way that I am talking about these patterns is as if they
are separate objects. I may do it poorly, but it is (s/o)intellectualizing.
This is why for me, the MoQ is an intellectual static pattern of value, but
Quality(unpatterned experience and patterned experience) is a Quality Level
above the Intellectual Level and presently beyond my linguistic description.


When the physicist states that the calculation for particle spin is not
mathematics, but "real", he has separated himself from the process and
reified an equation.  Particle spin has become an object to be manipulated.
That's just one example.  I'm not a physicist, but from what I've heard and
read most objectify these particles as independent, inherently existing
entities. There are some physicists that have philosophical concerns, but
most, even practicing Quantum physics, are scientific realists.  Nouns, in
general are about things.  When a philosopher is speaking of justice and
socialism those words represent abstract, reified theories/things that exist
out there, separate from self.  They are entities/nouns, not interrelated
ever-changing patterns.  

Humbly I submit that all I have just written is subject/object
intellectualizing.  


Marsha