[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Marsh,
replies,
Tim


> 
> Marsha:
> Collection - many - one's static value history.

[Tim]
1) how are the many held together?  Why don't these patterns, especially
the intellectual ones, just drift off, like autumn leaves fallen from a
tree?

2)are you saying that the 'I' that has 'influence' in DQ is this
collection of historical static patterns?  Can creativity enter this
way?

>[Marhsa] Please described  that not-so-changing consistency?  I have never 
> found it such.  

[Tim]
you have always known you to be Marsha.  You have never just drifted
into being Maggie, or Mary, or Tim.  Now I'm pretty sure that the MoQ,
RMP, in devising these explicitly stated static patterns, assumes an 'I'
a priori.  In your position, that the I is these static patterns, the
collection thereof, I think you are trouncing this unified quality-I. 
THe first cut RMP makes is between static and dynamic; your description
does not mention DQ, and I think 'ever-changing', etc., does not capture
that.  Neither does 'flowing'.  I wonder why your description does not
mention DQ!  So, using RMP's analogy of the train, THERE IS AN ENGINE AT
THE FRONT.  It is strong enough to carry cars for baggage and what not
along with it, but I think your description ignores the engine.  Perhaps
I take the analogy too far here, but: for that train to train along,
there has to be some dude up there in the engine that just keeps
shoveling coal into the boiler (this is the proper technology for way
back then, right?): not-so-changing consistency.  


> 
> > [Tim]
> > there is still a little nit that I picked before, regarding 'flowing':
> > that this might be too restrictive a term; But I think this is off topic
> > now.
> 
> Marsha:
> Flowing is an analogy.  What word do you prefer.

[Tim]
ehhhh, I don't really know, which is why I was kinda dismissive of this
point.  I think I like dynamic better but...  I don't know, let me know
if you really want me to press this now.  okay?
   
> 
> 
> > [Tim] 
> > also, while I'm at it, I wonder why you have both 'ever-changing' and
> > 'impermanent', specifically, why do you insist on the latter?
> 
> Marsha:
> A pattern event is always different, from individual to individual,
> across 
> time, and within the DQ field.

[Tim]
is 'field' important to you?

> [Marsha] Granted time and space and change are 
> givens, but I don't know how to talk without assuming them.

[Tim]
to be sure, I was fine with 'ever-changing', but 'impermanent' seemed
either redundant or overly presumptuous.

> [Marsha]  I suppose 
> that's the difficulty with discussing superposition and entanglement too, 
> The concepts are beyond our metaphysical assumptions and linguistic 
> rules.

[Tim]
you are thinking of things here that I am not thinking about (yet?). 
Are these out of the blue or should I be considering them when I think
of your description?

> [Marsha]  And why I get frustrated speaking of unpatterned experiences.

[Tim]
I don't know for sure if we are speaking of the same thing, but for me,
I think of potential, what is 'possible', and this is a pretty settling
conception.
  
> 
> [Marsha] Impermanent because an experience/event has a beginning, a middle 
> and an end.

[Tim]
yes then, this seems too presumptuous.  What is the end of Marsha?

Have you become an absolutist, Marsha? ;)


> 
> [Marsha] Choice?  Like in freewill?

[Tim]
yes.  Certainly.  Absolutely.  Though I prefer constrained-will.


> [Marsha]  Do you want choice in every event?

[Tim]
I want choice at every moment.  I don't know what you mean by 'every
event'.  If you want to say that my choice here an now, to be typing to
you - due to the intertwined nature of reality - is tantamount to choice
in every event, so be it: I am choosing then not to hinder the butterfly
from flapping its wings in china.

> [Marsha]  Do you want to choose when to breath?

[Tim]
I certainly could stop it if I really wanted, and I choose not to do so.
 Absolutely there are things beyond my control, gravity for instance.  I
don't feel any pressing need to define everything in the light of my
choice, but I suppose if I had to, I could always say that my choice is
to submit to the conditions that preserve my 'I'.  This, then, hearkens
back to the 'end' of 'Tim'; I like to think that there is such an option
if I come to desire it: but it seems way way overly presumptuous for me
to say that there is this option!

about breathing, I guess if I were given choice I would say that this
involuntary business is pretty good.  THe fact that I do not have to be
conscious of breathing (though I can be not-conscious but aware at the
same time, this according to RMP) is part of this human being which
provides - what seems to be - the most liberating vehicle for choice. 
There is a concomitant to MY choice, which is that it must be realized. 
It seems that this realization requires a reality, a physics, to which
the chooser must, ultimately, be submissive.  Therefore, in order for an
I to be able to have real choice, that I must do so in submission to
reality, including the reality of her vehicle.  Such requisites do not
bother me vis-a-vis choice: constrained-choice.  But the choice is real
(within the constrains).  And, from my perspective, it kinda seems that
this is the point.

> [Marsha]  What category of choice do you prefer 
> to make?  How many possible mental events happen in a minute?

[Tim]
yes, a very impressive vehicle is needed in order to free one
sufficiently from the constraints to be able to choose relatively
freely.

And, most importantly, regarding your question 'what category of choice
do you prefer to make?', the most vital... well, there are two: the
first, seems to me to be not meaningful without the second, but is a
prerequisite so I'm glad I didn't forget it, is the directing of one's
'I'.  At first you hinted at a 'controlling center' - the opposite side
of your description of an 'I'.  While the vast mass of things seems
uncontrollable, still, the 'I' has a very meaningful decision regarding
where to position itself, and its perceptive capacities, regarding this
great volume of uncontrollable (but somewhat influence-able) reality. 
Anyway, this is just to say that the 'I' has some control over itself,
which, though it be small in volume, is great in gravity.

This, then, leads to what I was going to say from the start, the
category of choice I prefer to make is how I behave towards other I's. 
I see reality as a forum for I's.  Such forum must be highly complex in
order to protect the reality of each I, and this leads to a seeming
distortion of each I, but the distortion is fair and reliable, and every
I is subject to the same rules - so it seems.  The main point of
choice-will is that I's get to interact as they choose-will with other
I's.  Seems simple and beautiful to me!
   
> 
> [Marsha] For me, awareness allows influencing an event.  

[Tim]
why?  and towards what ends?

Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service