[MD] All the way down

[118]

Hi Marsha,

OK, if I had the answers I wouldn't be asking them on in this forum.
I am here to learn from others.  But, I understand, they are difficult
to formulate.  I can accept that.  I will continue to search elsewhere
on this forum.  Meaningfulness grows with experience.

Thanks,
Mark

On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 1:36 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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
>