[MD] inorganic patterns & thinking

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Marsha


> 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.

But "unpatterned" seems to indicate that you don't think it's SQ.

Some SQ patterns are *very* dynamic. We may never be able to predict 
what will happen when we experience such patterns, and as such, they are 
perhaps best described as "unpatterned". But my point is that it's still 
some SQ pattern at the other end of the quality event/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.
>
> 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.

4.5 billion years ago, our solar system started spinning around its 
newly born star. An educated guess is that nobody was there to watch it, 
therefore nobody knew about it until afterwards.

What do you mean by "known"? That some enlightened being thought about 
it? That a lesser being looked at a juicy looking apple? That an amoeba 
swam left because the water tasted better that way? That a molecule 
bonded with another molecule forming a larger molecule?

At some point, you have to decide what constitutes "knowing", and that 
is a *very* hard call to make. So can you tell me exactly *when* was the 
earth "known"? Did it become real in that instant?

Please explain *that* logic.

Don't you understand that the levels are here to solve that puzzle? We 
can now recognize that the earth have been around since it formed. Life 
has been evolving at its own pace and now we're here to *know* it. The 
*knowing* is an intellectual pattern, nothing more. Before that, lower 
level patterns was there without anyone knowing about it. It was 
unknown, but not unreal.

That old joke about "known" being the only measure of reality is just 
bull. Forget it!

 > Oh, maybe it is that if it is unknown, it would not exist to be
 > labeled either real OR unreal???

Labelling stuff is what the intellectual level does. It labels other 
types of patterns with its own label. So if something is unknown, it's 
simply not labelled at all. Neither real nor unreal.


>> 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.

Conventional reality? What's that?

>> 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.

Stop blaming science and rationality.

Write "F=m*g" on a piece of paper and put it on the floor.
Stand beside the paper and jump up.

How are those two experiences, reading the formula and jumping, similar?


>> 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.

No, "gravity" is one thing, the "theory of gravity" is another. No 
circumstances are relevant. It has nothing to do with multiple truths.

"What we say here" are just the words that I write, there's not much 
inorganic stuff in those, some electrons, some coloured areas on your 
computer screen, or some ink on a paper.

"What we talk about" on the other hand can be anything that those words 
represent, via the common language we use here.

> 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 started in the other end, categorizing until nothing was left outside. 
Then the nature of the levels became quite clear as well.


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

Yes, zoom out - refocus? :)

And I still claim that the relationship between the theory of gravity 
and gravity is that the "theory of gravity" is an intellectual pattern 
that does its best to represent the inorganic pattern gravity. Neither 
the intellectual version of the inorganic version is objective, or "out 
there". Because even if the direct connection between the theory of 
gravity and gravity is provisional as you put it, there *is* a hard 
dependency between the intellectual level and the inorganic level. 
There's no dependency between the specific intellectual *pattern* that 
we call "the theory of gravity" and the inorganic pattern though. But 
that's not really relevant.

>> What we talk *about* can be of any level.
>
> Right.  Talking about granite is talking about an inorganic pattern
> of value, yes?

Yes.

	Magnus