[MD] All the way down

[118]

Hi Marsha,
Conversation below.

On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 12:19 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
>
> On Dec 18, 2010, at 2:19 PM, 118 wrote:
>
>> Hi Andre, Marsha,
>>
>> Mark:
>> I will have to agree with Andre, that saying DQ is SQ is
>> counterproductive.
>
> Marsha:
> It is the way I know it: Quality(unpatterned/patterned).

[Mark]
So, you make a division between patterned and unpatterned.  This could
be useful for you.  Are you able to derive a metaphysics based on that
division?  Do they switch around?  Is the unpatterned DQ and the
patterned SQ to use our symbols of MoQ?  So we have the unpatterned,
does the brain make the patterns?  Do the patterns make the brain?  Or
is everything completely out of our control?  How does free will enter
in to the patterned/unpatterned dichotomy?  You must have thought
about this.  If not, that is fine too, but division is necessary to
explain.
>
>
>> Mark:
>> Yes, they are both descriptions within Quality, and the divide is
>> an intellectual one, but that is what MoQ is all about.
>
> Marsha:
> I find patterned experience to be a overlay onto the unpatterned.
>
[Mark]
How would you define patterned v unpatterned?
>
>> Mark:
>> Saying that they are the same does not add to our creation of
>> a meaningful metaphysics.
>
> Marsha:
> My primary, meaningful metaphysics is Quality(unpatterned experience/
> patterned experience.

[Mark]
How would you explain this meaningfulness in words?
>
>
>> Mark:
>> As such, DQ is SQ is a meaningless statement.
>
> Marsha:
> It represents my experience of Quality.

[Mark]
Are you separating yourself from Quality?  Is it something that you
experience or is it something that creates the you that experiences?
I am a little confused by your use of "my".
>
>
>> Mark:
>> We have created two parts for a reason.
>
> Marsha:
> Usefulness?  But that should not prevent from looking beyond
> apparent usefulness.

[Mark]
Sure, what would you consider to be something beyond apparent
usefulness?  What provides you meaning that is beyond usefulness.  If
something is not useful, does it have meaning to you?  If the concept
of God is not useful to you, does it still have meaning to you?
>
>
>> Mark:
>> No need to say the distinction doesn't exist, we created it, so it does
>> exist, in its most absolute form.  They Really exist.
>
> Marsha:
> The static patterns of value conventionally exist.
>
[Mark]
I am not sure what you mean by conventionally exist.  Does this still
mean they exist, or does the term conventionally mean that they don't
exist?  Is it an anti-existence modifier?  What things would exist
non-conventionally?  Would you devide the world into conventional
existence and non-conventional existence?  If not, how does the word
conventional separate kinds of existence.

So, far as I know, the division between existent and nonexistent is a
useful division.  Perhaps there are different kinds of existence such
as the conventional type.  How does this fit into the patterned v
unpatterned?  Are unpatterned of the unconventional type of
existences?
>
>> Mark:
>> Having said that, it is always useful to acknowledge that we are the
>> creators, so that we do not get stuck in some Truth.
>
> Marsha:
> We?  As individuals we participate, but static patterns of value depend
> on a multitude of conditions, and in turn participate as a condition for
> other patterns.

[Mark]
This sounds kind of like the Buddhist notion of codependent arising.
Did you know that electrons and positron suddenly appear and disappear
from and back to gamma rays?  They cannot appear alone, but must
always appear together to conserve the neutrality of charge in our
universe.  Is this kind of the pattern participation that you are
pointing to?  Kind of a Yin/Yang appearance, that then needs to
consolidate to disappear again?  If this appearance of positrons and
electrons last for more than a few thousandths of a second, it could
change the universe.

 Perhaps it was the original appearance of particles out of the flat
line of the universe that is in the process of getting together to
disappear once again.  These appearances affect other appearances.  If
one tries to separate quarks, it takes so much energy that we just end
up making more quarks.  If one tries to pull apart the spring holding
a proton together we end up with more protons, instead of pulling it
apart.  Perhaps this is what you mean by conditional participation.
Part of the beauty of symmetry.

Anyway, so many questions to get an understanding of your
understanding, and so little time.

Cheers,
Mark
>
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Andre Broersen
>> <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Marsha responding to Tim by referring to Marsha and dmb's interaction
>>> (phew!):
>>>
>>> DQ is sq, sq is DQ.  Most of us know this, but it sounds like
>>> Matt and Steve do not care to focus on a separate DQ experience.
>>>
>>> Andre:
>>> To keep on confusing, or rather suggesting that 'DQ is sq' is completely
>>> uprooting any kind of meaningful conversation Marsha, and certainly when
>>> talking about a static intellectual pattern of value called 'MOQ'.
>>>
>>> By substituting one for the other you make talking about metaphysics
>>> impossible, you are making talk of 'history' impossible, you are making talk
>>> of 'evolution' meaningless. It reminds me of the episode where Phaedrus sat
>>> in class in Benares and asked the professor if Hiroshima had actually
>>> happened...if it was real?
>>>
>>> There comes a time when you have to 'own up'. There IS a difference between
>>> static and Dynamic. Yes, they are related. They are related in their
>>> interdependency, their dependent-arising but that does not mean they are
>>> interchangeable. To confuse this relationship is to make anything
>>> conventionally meaningful, meaningless. Is that what you want? Reduce all to
>>> statements of 'relativity' to apply to all static patterns?
>>>
>>> 'Nothing is real, and nothing to get hum about'
>>>
>>> This inevitably leads to nihilism Marsha. You may feel that way in your own
>>> life but here we are talking about a metaphysics. You make it sound like it
>>> is a different process to you. I get the feeling that you have no idea about
>>> this. In a very important way MOQ is biography. Don't generalize your own
>>> biography to stand for the one we are discussing. Many here on this discuss
>>> do that... and find fault with Mr. Pirsig.
>>>
>>> Think again. Do not confuse Pirsig's MOQ with your own...He is a very smart
>>> and wise man. Sometimes wise men know us better than we think we know
>>> ourselves, and sometimes wise men are smarter than we think ourselves to be.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>