[MD] All the way down

[MarshaV]

Mark,

Your questions seem in such earnest that I've decided for the 
answers to meaningful for you that you should answer them 
for yourself.

Thanks.


Marsha 





On Dec 18, 2010, at 4:14 PM, 118 wrote:

> 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



 
___