[MD] Step One

[118]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 2:42 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:27 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Oct 21, 2010, at 8:03 PM, 118 wrote:
> >>
> >>> Marsha:
> >>> I never stated that the MoQ could be described by neti-neti.  I was
> >> saying
> >>> to
> >>> Dan that all this talk it not Quality(Ultimate Truth).
> >>>
> >>> I do not understand your complaint?
> >>>
> >>> Mark:
> >>> My complaint was that I do not understand what you are saying.  Could
> all
> >>> this talk be considered attempts at a metaphysical description of
> >> Quality?
> >>>
> >>> I have not read all of your correspondence with Dan on this subject, so
> >>> perhaps I should not just jump in.  I will try to get full
> understanding
> >>> before I just take a statement and run with it, so as not to waste your
> >>> time.  I can see you are getting frustrated with my inane questions and
> I
> >>> beg your forgiveness.   Gracias (as John would say).
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Mark,
> >>
> >> Sorry, Mark, maybe you are projecting your frustration on to me.   I was
> >> suggesting to Dan with my words 'not this, not that'  that when all is
> said
> >> and done, if I may use an analogy; the words on the menu are not the
> food.
> >>
> >> Please feel free to explain neti-neti to your liking.
> >>
> >>
> >> Marsha
> >>
> >
> > Mark:
> > Yes you are correct, frustration on my part.  I wasn't projecting it on
> you,
> > I was trying to explain why I was asking questions.  Perhaps I need to
> > change the way I frame them.
> >
> > Yes, words are an analogy as Phaedrus stated in ZAMM, that is a given in
> > this forum.
> >
> > I looked up the word analogy on Dictionary.com to see if it would help me
> > explain.  Definitions 5 is:
> >
> > 5. Logic . a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be
> similar
> > to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known
> similarity
> > between the things in other respects.
> >
> > I inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not
> this,
> > not that.  Clearly I was mistaken.  You were simply stating that Quality
> can
> > not be described with words.  OK, I get it.  How is it then that you
> discuss
> > it?
> >
> > What I am asking now, is: what are the known respective properties of
> > Quality?
>
>
> Mark,
>
>
> Marsha:
> Naked (unpatterned experience/patterned experience); that is as deep as
> I have experienced Quality.  It is awesome realizations that I have never
> found adequately expressed by words or things, even wonderful words and
> paintings.  Though words and paintings may initiate such experience.  So
> can
> simple events.  It is being the unknown, undivided and undefined.  To be
> forced to pick out one or two such incidences seems like a Sophie's choice.
>
>
> > You can send me a picture if that would help, so long as you add
> > some descriptive (not encrypted) words.  I do not do well with riddles.
>
> No riddles?  But there is nothing to say or see that is not a riddle.   I
> wish
> I could bring you the moon...  But, there, it is outside your window, Mark.
> Go let the moon shine moonlight on your face.
>
>
>
> Marsha
>

Hi Marsha,
I like what you posted.  Riddles within riddles.  I was speaking to the more
conventional sort.
Metaphysics (IMHO) attempts at bringing meaning to the unknown in the same
way that science does.  It expands the frontiers of (so called)
understanding, which is pattern-making to include the unknown into the
intellect.  Words of description, what we call knowledge (and not the
instinctual knowledge, what ever that is...instinct is another pattern in
itself to describe the unknowable) is the tool.

You often use the Patterning Principle as example.  A while back I read the
word constellation which as you recall I challenged.  Well, attack mode has
been switched to neutral.  As I think you have said, the brain creates
patterns from the unpatterned and converts it into an SOM dialogue.  The
unpatterned is that which has not yet been converted.

I think I understand your proposition of pure undefined experience as a form
of quality, the unpatterned until it becomes patterned as an experience.
 This is analogous to Ham's differentiation.  That you use a slash implies
an interrelationship between the two.  I am delving into that relationship
(in a patterning way).  Using your Patterning Principle, as I do for Ham's
Differentiation.

To understand a metaphysics based on that principle takes a little more than
pointing to direct experience, it takes the formulation of that experience
in a mutually sharable format.  So, to now ask a question in order to
provide myself that understanding.  What is the process by which the
unpatterned become patterned?  This is not a question of neurophysiology,
but a metaphysical one.  The intent is to investigate into a written
description of Quality.  It looks at it from the process side of things.

Cheers,
Mark

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>