[MD] inorganic patterns & thinking

[MarshaV]

On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:02 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> On Jul 19, 2010, at 7:24 AM, Magnus Berg wrote:
> 
>> On 2010-07-19 11:17, MarshaV wrote:
>>> Sight at its very least is not about identified objects, only form and
>>> color.  But one can experience sight sans even form and color too.
>>> It is ALL conceived.  It's useful and I wouldn't throw away any but the
>>> arrogance of thinking the "real" has been realized.
>> 
>> Arrogance is there in SOM, yes, because in SOM, there's no other relationship between the perceived object in your head and the object observed.
>> 
>> But in MoQ, we know that there *is* a direct dependency from our internal image of the object, to the reality of the object via the levels. I'm not saying that your brain is supported by *that* stone, but I'm saying that your brain is supported by inorganic patterns just *like* a stone.
>> 
>> So, in SOM, ALL is conceived. But in MoQ, where we have the level dependency and know that our internal "minds" are supported by inorganic patterns, we can know that there are inorganic patterns. From there, I don't think it's arrogant anymore to give the stone a status of real.
>> 
>> 	Magnus
> 
> Hello again,
> 
> First, thank you for the seriousness of this exchange.
> 
> For me the MoQ is Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience), all else is speculation.  What you "know" is bits and pieces of ever-changing, interrelated, impermanent pattern, and I think it arrogant to call that real.  Call it the most useful and best workable hypothesis available at the moment, but not real.  
> 
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 


Magnus,

I am of the mind that all patterns have a relationship with thinking and that is the cause of the 
self/object split.  But in the fourth level it has become formalized and can do the most damage 
by its emphasis an objective, thing-in-itself world and "real" knowledge.


Marsha