[MD] inorganic patterns & thinking

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Marsha

> DQ is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable so I find it perfectly
> suitable to talk of such a personal experience as unpatterned
> experience.  Somewhere RMP equates experience and value.  I'm not
> stating something heretical, I am more being cautious.

I just want to be clear about what you really mean. But I've already 
said what I think you really mean in MoQ terms, so I don't think we get 
any further here. I just don't think you can experience pure DQ, because 
DQ is not something you *can* experience.

>> 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.
>
> Neither are wrong, but what would this force be without those
> patterns?  Unknown.

Without 1 it would be unknown, but not unreal. That's a heck of a 
difference.

Are you denying the reality of the inorganic level? Because if you do, 
all higher levels become unreal too, because all higher levels are 
dependent on lower.

>> That's another aspect that makes them different. The intellectual
>> version of gravity changes, not the inorganic version.
>
> Didn't RMP discuss all sorts of processes that defy this force?  But
> I admit that theories, being mental constructs, seem to much more
> subject to change.

He said something like, life could almost be defined as the organized 
disobedience against the law of gravity. (I think he wrote "law of 
gravity", but "gravity" would have been more correct).

>> 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.
>
> I suspect you have in mind some objective, independent, "out there"
> force.

Please Marsha, no. You missed the point. "Gravity" is the inorganic 
pattern and works very well without anyone knowing about it. "The theory 
of gravity" is what you can write as a formula. Did you forget the 1 and 
2 above?

The closest thing to a "objective, independent, out there force" would 
be the inorganic version. But:

* It's not objective. It's made up of quality events just like other 
levels, just more static than higher levels.

* It's not independent. Higher levels are absolutely dependent on it, 
and as such, not "out there".


> For me, force or theory describing force are both patterns of
> value.  Seems to be as they are being here discussed they are both
> intellectual patterns.

They are both patterns of value, yes. But the force is inorganic, the 
theory is intellectual.

What we say here is of course intellectual patterns. BUT, note that I 
said "what we say here", not "what we talk about".

What we talk *about* can be of any level.

>> 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.
>
> Sure and the most Dynamic bottom line perspective would be: 'not
> this, not that.'

Huh? Was that really meant to explain anything to me? Cause I simply 
don't get stuff like that, I'm too square or something.

>> Sure, definitely, as long as you recognize the realness of both
>> levels, in this case both the inorganic and the organic.
>
> My expanded understanding would include that knowledge that this is a
> provincial way of knowing and transitory.

And that's the attitude I was referring to when I said "have faith".

	Magnus