[MD] inorganic patterns & thinking

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Marsha

On 2010-07-25 13:06, MarshaV wrote:
> Perhaps pure sensation, but still without pattern or thought.  I use the term
> 'unpatterned experience' to avoid using DQ which is unknowable and undefinable.
> There was full awareness, but I say there were NO concepts or intellectual patterns.
> When thoughts returned, the difference was very noticeable.  Btw, I didn't really try to
> experience nothingness, in visual awareness thoughts just dropped away.  It is
> modern to say it is an experience 'in the brain', but there is no certainty that it is
> solely a function of the brain.  In fact, there is very little certainty of how either
> awareness or the flow of consciousness function.  I had the same experience a
> couple of times.   That was last fall, I haven't had such an experience since then.
> I know what I've describe sounds a bit wacky, and I cannot think that it is extremely
> profound because then the questions arises:  Why me?   It is more likely something
> dsthat happens all the time, but slips awareness because of the intrusion of thoughts.

Ok, but I hope you realize that there are two ways to proceed here. 
Either, you acknowledge that what you're experiencing was some very 
dynamic intellectual patterns and that would let you explain it within 
the MoQ. Or, you add some new stuff in our reality which you call 
"unpatterned experience" which is neither SQ nor DQ and that somehow 
appears without a prior quality event?

I think the latter is quite a leap from the MoQ I know.

> You do not need to acknowledge/energize the event.  One can just let it slide on by.
> I learned this in mediation many moons ago.  Nothing special here.

As I said above, I think that produces a MoQ I don't recognize anymore.


> All these aspects of "gravity" seem useful.  What is this force apart from the patterns
> that identify it?

1. The "patterns that identify it" are the formulas we use to calculate 
the gravitational force, i.e. F=g*m (or F=G*m1*m2/r^2) using Newton's 
version.

2. The "force" is what's stopping you from banging your head in the 
ceiling if you jump upwards indoors.

The two are different. That's what the levels are all about. To be able 
to tell things like these apart. They are not ghosts anymore as Phaedrus 
thought in ZMM, they are different types/levels of patterns.

>>
>> That article about gravity you posted a link to for example, the aim of that was to
>> make us doubt, not the currently used *theory* about gravity, but gravity itself! We
>> were not supposed to doubt Einstein's formulas, but the very fact that gravity holds
>> us to the ground. The realness of gravity was defined as something else, and we
>> sticking to the ground was just a side-effect.
>
> Explanations (patterns) change.  No reason to doubt sticking to the ground, at least
> not in this moment.

That's another aspect that makes them different. The intellectual 
version of gravity changes, not the inorganic version.

>> Also, in the taste example, you have no problem acknowledging the realness of
>> taste, but you duck the realness of gravity by talking about useful and workable
>> patterns. I think it's a bit inconsistent.
>
> I taste.  I stick to the ground.  What's to doubt?

If you can't distinguish the force from the patterns that identify it, 
and then you say that explanations (patterns) change, that suggests that 
you think that the force changes as the explanation changes.

If I thought that, I'd be in serious doubt.

>> Because if you don't have a good framework with which to show that the taste of a
>> cup of coffee is real, SOMeone will take away that experience and explain it in
>> terms of biochemical formulas.
>
> Krimel, for example?  His explanations are really interesting and describe the
> movement within conventional understanding, but I have a very healthy skepticism
> against ALL authorities:  religious, scientific or the new church of probability.

I'm afraid I haven't followed Krimel on this. I'm sure a conventional 
understanding is adequate for most situations, but I kinda think it's 
more fun to understand everything from within a MoQ perspective.

> I think the idea is to expand understanding.  Sometimes the biochemical theory is
> as interesting as the taste experience, sometimes more interesting.

Sure, definitely, as long as you recognize the realness of both levels, 
in this case both the inorganic and the organic.

	Magnus