[MD] inorganic patterns & thinking

[MarshaV]

On Jul 26, 2010, at 8:44 AM, Magnus Berg wrote:

> 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.

And logically that would leave only DQ, right?  I do not think such small 
experiences allow one to leap to any grand conclusions about DQ.  


> 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.

I guess I cannot prevent you from analyzing my experience to your own 
comfort level, but may I please remind you that it was not your 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.

It's still an educated guess that is conventionally postulated as 'real'.  

> 
> What do you mean by "known"?

I don't know.  What do you mean by "known"?  


> That some enlightened being thought about it?

I do not know what you mean by "enlightened" being in 
this context?  


> 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?

Lovely...   


> 
> 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?

I am having more success discovering the falseness in what I 
know.     


> Please explain *that* logic.

The ultimate truth (knowledge) is best approached by discovering 
what is false.   Conventional truths are useful and relative.  


> 
> Don't you understand that the levels are here to solve that puzzle?

I understand the levels to be a useful approach to evaluating which 
patterns are better.  


> We can now recognize that the earth have been around since it formed.

Well, it is not round, and it might have been farther from a perfect sphere 
prior to the shape we have determined it to be in modern times.  


> Life has been evolving at its own pace and now we're here to *know* it.

Interesting.  


> 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.

How do you know that?   


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

I don't know the joke.  


> 
> > 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.

Cant the social level label something food?   


>>> 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?

In my opinion, a collection of static patterns of value.   


>>> 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.

I'm not blaming any thing.   


> 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?

Jump.  Jump.  Jump.   

This is obvious an experiment that gives you satisfaction.  It doesn't 
work for me, so I can't make that determination.  


>>> 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.

That this is true for you, does not make it true for me.   For me it is 
still an open question.  I tend towards the whole kit and kaboodle 
being an intellectual pattern.


> "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.

Words as labels and their meaning, and how we categorize are 
all bits and pieces of pattern, and all patterns have a relationship 
with thoughts/consciousness/thinking.  So, huh?    
 

>> 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 can understand that, too, would be a very interesting and valid 
approach.  


>> 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.

In meditation I have seen the flow of thoughts, so I have developed 
an ability to laugh at workings of my puny mind.  And other minds 
too.    


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

Agreeing is nice.  


Marsha 


 
___