[MD] inorganic patterns & thinking

[MarshaV]

On Jul 26, 2010, at 2:22 PM, Magnus Berg wrote:

> On 2010-07-26 15:54, MarshaV wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> Neither do I. That's why I'm trying to make you rethink what the experience
> was in terms of SQ and DQ.

I was fully aware, and it was 'unpatterned experience'.  



>>> 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.
> 
> Of course it wasn't mine, but at the same time, you can't expect me to revise
> my understanding of the MoQ based on your experience.

 I know I cannot change yours, but thought you were trying to change my mind. 
   


>>>>>>> 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"?
> 
> You used the term first so it's your term to explain. I was asking because
> if you answer I can give you a better example to show what I mean.

It's a often used term around here.  I do not know what it means  to be "known" 
with any certainty.  I recognize patterns of past events and predict that they 
are reliably repeatable.  That would be a way of assuming the "known."  


> 
>>> That some enlightened being thought about it?
>> 
>> I do not know what you mean by "enlightened" being in
>> this context?
> 
> Another reason why this would be much easier if you just answer my
> question above.

Easier for whom?  Not for me, I'm quite comfortable with this new 
perspective.  ---  More - more - more!!!   Bring it on Buddha!!!  ;-).   Just kidding... 
I know well the admonition "Be careful of what you wish for."
  

>>> 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...
> 
> I don't think you're being serious with me anymore. I'm trying to show you
> why I so strongly believe that the ZMM ghost called gravity can be explained
> much better using the levels, than reverting to some old if-a-tree-falls-in-the-
> forest-and-nobody-is-there-to-hear-it-it-doesn't-fall-philosophy. And your
> reply is, I don't know, demeaning.

I am getting a little silly, but I think we have gone as far as we can go.
I respect your point-of-view, but it is quite different than mine, and our 
methods are quite opposite.  I am not trying to demean your statements 
in any way.  I care deeply for the MoQ.  This discussion has been 
quite rewarding, and very enjoyable.  And while I am not ready to make 
a commitment concerning 'gravity', an enlarged question has been 
planted in my mind.  


>>> 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.
> 
> Dodge left...

No, sincere effort.  


>>> Please explain *that* logic.
>> 
>> The ultimate truth (knowledge) is best approached by discovering
>> what is false.   Conventional truths are useful and relative.
> 
> ...and dodge right.
> 
> "best approached by discovering what is false"?? That was exactly what
> Phaedrus thought was misrepresented with the scientific method in ZMM!

It's a personal investigation, but iscovering what is false is an important part 
of the scientific method.
  

> Science told everyone that it was able to enumerate *all* hypotheses, and
> then refute one by one (i.e. discover which was false) until only the correct
> one was left.

I do not represent Science, but someone who is interested in a better 
understanding of reality.   


> But Phaedrus showed that it's impossible to do that. Human
> intuition, or Quality, selected only those hypotheses that had any chance
> of succeeding.

And? 


> Stop burping bull at me! Be serious. I'm trying to be.

We've gone as far as we can.  Did you really think your powers of 
persuasion were going to succeed with me, when they have failed 
with the others?  


Thanks for your time and effort.



Marsha






 
___