[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[MarshaV]

On Dec 10, 2010, at 6:23 PM, rapsncows at fastmail.fm wrote:

> Marsha,
> real quick
> Tim
> 
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:57:56 -0500, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> said:
>> 
>> On Dec 10, 2010, at 8:08 AM, rapsncows at fastmail.fm wrote:
>> 
>>> [Tim]
>>> so, it seems we can get to: "The critical point, however, is that
>>> conscious awareness (sensibility) and the intellect by which it
>>> functions are proprietary to the individual self" without (recognizing)
>>> a '..."uniform, unchanging, and limitless" Source' called 'essence'.  I
>>> wonder if you could convince Marsha to incorporate 'proprietary' into
>>> her definition of self?  I think so: '...interdependent, proprietary,
>>> impermanent..."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> There seems to be a stream of interconnected bit and pieces of pattern, 
>> but no underlying entity that represents a proprietor.  
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> [Tim]
> well, I don't know if we *need* to bring in 'entity' or the noun form
> 'proprietor'.  Can 'proprietary' be brought in to your definition if it
> functions to denote an impossibility of having two 'collections' (as you
> have defined it - off the top of my head: 'ever-changing,
> interdependent, impermanent, collections of inorganic, biological,
> social, intellectual, static patterns of value') break the bound that
> keeps them 'interdependent' in order to become same, identical?  Or,
> perhaps we could say that the collection is *unique* to you: would this
> work?  If so, I think we have found an essential common ground with Ham.
> 
> P.S. I went back and looked at the email that got me all bothered when
> you didn't respond.  I didn't see much Quality there.  I'm not sure what
> I was thinking.  I know that I thought your response would give me a
> real clue into your position, and I really was anticipating a response. 
> But, anyway, I'm sorry for what now appears to be an over-reaction on my
> part.
> -- 


 
Hi Tim,

My position keeps going poof.  

I can adopt a hypothetical, unique, proprietary self for the sake of 
Ham's Essence Metaphysics, but it does not hold together on 
investigation.  Look, I am a static girl living in a static world; don't 
see that there's a way around it.  That's the way the world has 
evolved to function.  But upon investigation it all collapses.  Time, 
space and self dissolve, and it is analogy/patterns all the way 
down.  Even the Buddhists postulate a continuity of individual 
consciousness on which is built karma, reincarnation and etc., but 
it all seems to be built on assumptions.  It might be that I have not 
developed the skills to experience an unbroken continuity, so the 
best I can accept is Quality(unpatterned/patterned).  This is not a 
denigration of static quality which always seem to have a 
wondrous existence.

Yes the collection of patterns could seem "unique," but based on 
what other than assumption?  Sooo, I don't know...  


Marsha 


 
 

 
___