[MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics

[MarshaV]

On Oct 11, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Mary wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
>> Hi Mary,
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> I think within the MoQ, the fourth level, the Intellectual Level, is
>> comprised of
>> intellectual static patterns of value. The way that these patterns
>> function is
>> as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and
>> manipulation.
>> Reification decontextualizes.  Intellectual patterns process from a
>> subject/object
>> conceptual framework creating false boundaries that give the illusion
>> of
>> independence as a "thing" or an "object of analysis."  The fourth level
>> is a
>> formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the paramount demand is
>> for
>> rational, objective knowledge, which is free from the taint of any
>> subjectivity.
>> 
> [Mary replies]
> Marsha, I hate to say it, but I think we (you and I) might be fighting a
> losing battle here.  The more words we throw at Quality, Values, and Morals,
> the worse it gets.  That's as it should be, though, since these are
> pre-intellectual.  The words do not do them justice.  Once we try to put
> words to them, they get reduced back into something much less than they are.


Marsha:
You are correct.  Words are confining.  



>>> Mary:
>>> Explaining patterns, examining patterns, comparing and contrasting
>> patterns.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> Explaining, examining and contrasting patterns that have been reified
>> as objects
>> of analysis.
>> 
> [Mary replies]
> 
> Yup.
> 
>> 
>>> Mary:
>>> By definition, SOM can't address an 'unpattern'.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> Right, not without reifying the unpatterned experience into an object
>> of analysis.
>> 
> [Mary replies]
> 
> Double yup! :)
> 
>> 
>>> Mary:
>>> The reason we have so much trouble communicating the essence of
>>> 'unpatterns' to SOMists is precisely because they cannot be
>>> addressed in the realm of patterns.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> Patterns of value do not have the exact, boundaries of definition and
>> independence required to be examined and manipulated as objects
>> of analysis.  To include all of a patterns interconnected processes
>> would
>> be beyond the methods acceptable to science/ logic which wants to
>> isolate
>> for verification purposes.
>> 
>> 
> [Mary replies]
> 
> Ever notice how the majority of women seem to get it while the majority of
> men don't?  I'm just sayin'...

True, starting with Lila.  ;-)    



>>> Mary:
>>> The first cut at Dynamic Quality is experience.  In the instant we've
>>> 'experienced', it becomes one of 2 things in the second cut - a
>> subject
>>> or an object.  That's unfortunate, because once we've sliced things
>> up
>>> as subjects and objects, we can no longer talk about Quality, or
>> Values,
>>> or Morals.  We're hard-wired that way.  Not our fault, just our
>> disability.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> Not sure that I am comfortable with describing experience as the first
>> cut.
>> Maybe an Experience (Quality) is the cutting (process/verb), and
>> reification
>> follows.  If not hard-wired, then an insidious habit of thought.
>> 
> 
> [Mary replies]
> 
> There ain't no cut for us before experience.  If we didn't experience it, it
> didn't happen, right?


Marsha:
I'm not getting the cut between Dynamic and static; I know them as the same.  
The difference seems nonexistent.    


Marsha   


 
___