[MD] inorganic patterns & thinking

[MarshaV]

On Jul 25, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Magnus Berg wrote:

> 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.

And that is why I do not say that I did experience DQ, and why I do 
explain the experience as unpatterned experience.  DQ is beyond
explanation.  I'm 'explaining' the experience, describing it  as 
unpatterned.  



>>> 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.

How could something that is unknown be real in any sense of the word?  
How would it be judged real in any sense of the word?  You will need to 
explain your logic.  


> 
> 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.

I am not denying the conventional reality of the inorganic level.



> 
>>> 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).

I thought so.    



> 
>>> 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?

Gravity and The theory of gravity, are patterns of value.  They are known by being patterns.

Oh wait, I am not saying that if I do not have personal knowledge of these patterns they do not 
exist provincially.  I'm saying no static pattern of value, no provisional existence.  



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

So it would mistakenly seem.

> 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".

I agree.


>> 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.

Yes, science needs to divide these for rational analysis, I understand that 
science creates all sorts of boundaries for the convenience of its method,
but I'm not sure they can be considered two separate patterns.  I do not see 
how gravity exists, even as a force, separate from the theories that 
created it.  I see the logic of it for practical purposes, but interrelated/
interdependent  otherwise.


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

You are being too subtle for me.  You will need to explain.  It sounds
like you are saying that gravity can be two different things dependent 
on the circumstances.  That would fit that the MoQ supports 
multiple truth.  -  I have given far more consideration to the nature 
of all patterns than to categorizing individual patterns into their 
proper level.

I remember starting this thread by stating that all static patterns of 
value had a relationship with thoughts/consciousness/thinking.  

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

Right.  Talking about granite is talking about an inorganic pattern of
value, yes?  


> 
>>> 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.

It was to stress provinciality of all patterns.
   

>>> 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".

Of course when I wake up in the morning I have some kind of 
unconscious faith that the floor will support me to stand up.


Marsha


 
___