[MD] X = no-self

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Marsha,

one more try,


> >>>>>> Marsha: [updated] 
> >>>>>> I am [a flow of bits and pieces of] ever-changing, interdependent, inorganic,
> >>>>>> biological, social and intellectual static patterns of value entangled
> >>>>>> within [a field of] DQ.  
> >>>>>> 


> 
> Marsha:
> The collection isn't laid out in front of me like a bucket of legos. 
> Maybe the 
> missing word is flow.  So back to "I am a flow of ever-changing..."  or
> better 
> yet "I am a flow of bits and pieces of ever-changing..."  There are bits
> and 
> pieces of pattern that are associated with the name John (for pragmatic  
> purposes,) but... they are not John.   I have never seen, smelled, heard, 
> tasted or touched John.  All I know of John has been conceptually 
> constructed with bits and pieces of pattern in reaction to reading his
> words. 

[Tim]
okay.  When I am not precise with my language, you get me for
imprecision.  When I am precise, you tell me that you are no nobel prize
worthy intellectual.  Perhaps there is no overlap between precise enough
and comprehensible.  Perhaps there is no hope for agreement.  But you
have an expectation - or give me the language you prefer - that there is
a John - out there somewhere - right?  And whatever John is, he cannot
be fully contained within the flow of bits and pieces of ... patterns
that is Marsha, right?  You do believe that there is more to what is
than just you, right?  This is all I have been after in this exchange. 
I have tried to map the internal of your definition of self, now I am
trying to map the boundary - to be very lax in language.


> 
> > [Tim] The point of this is, another way, you
> > recognize the pattern you have called 'John' as internal to you, in line
> > with your admittal that you are not aware of any pattern that is not
> > included in this collection - which collection we call Marsha for
> > pragmatic reasons (or whatnot).
> 
>[Marsha] I guess?

[Tim]

from the above I now think that there was a problem about 'aware' - my
bad; and that about this you would rather answer, I guess not.

> 
> 
> >>>>> [Tim] Question 1: are you / can you be, aware of anything that is not included
> >>>>> in this 'collection'?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Marsha:
> >>>> Aware?  My answer is no.

[Tim]
from the above: "[Marsha] they are not John.   I have never seen,
smelled, heard, tasted or touched John."  So, again, Do you believe that
there is pattern outside of Marsha:"I am [a flow of bits and pieces of]
ever-changing, interdependent, inorganic, biological, social and
intellectual static patterns of value entangled within [a field of] DQ."




> > 
> >[Tim] part a: you can account for the word 'expectation' in some intellectual
> > way, right?  
> 
>[Marsha] Only in a abstracted, reified intellectual way divorced from all other
> relative,
> interdependent processes.    
> 
> 
> Within the confines of "intellectual," does the above explain this?  Or
> are 
> you asking if I have also imagined inorganic, biological and social
> patterns 
> associated with the label John? 

[Tim]
Honestly, the 'above' is complete gibberish to me.  I don't understand
how you can divorce an expectation (or an idea for that matter) from all
other relative, interdependent processes.  I know you turn a nob in your
shower with the expectation that water will come out of the shower head.
 

> > 
> >[Tim]  then, assuming yes, part b: Amidst the collection of patterns that is
> > Marsha, is there now (or has there been from time to time) an
> > intellectual (or other classification if you prefer) pattern of value,
> > of expectation, which expectation is that there is, or should be, some
> > pattern of value that is not included *within* the collection you/we
> > call Marsha?
> 
>[Marsha] I don't see how I can imagine a pattern outside past experience.

[Tim]
you require such precision of others, and then you imagine words into
what other people say to you that aren't there!  Or...

>[Marsha] Maybe I can discover a dynamic re-combination, or maybe I'll be hit by a original 
> dynamic event.

[Tim]
I'll be casual.  Do you think/believe that there is more than Marsha? 
Or, do you think/believe that anything about which you may be conscious
is a bit or piece that is a bit or piece in your definition of Marsha? 
Or is there something else?
  
> 
> [Marsha] Please, Tim,  don't ask me to explain how consciousness works unless you 
> are prepared to see that I win a Nobel prize.  In other words, you are
> asking me to speculate.  I can watch patterns flow through consciousness; what
> happens before and after I haven't a clue.  I'm a bug, not a genius or
> accomplished yogi.

[Tim]
first, you're winning a noble prize would be fine by me.  I can imagine:
"this years winner is '[a flow of bits and pieces of] ever-changing,
interdependent, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual static
patterns of value entangled within [a field of] DQ.'"

second, this turn towards the explanation of how consciousness works was
never my intent.  I don't know how this came across.  Is this some
repercussion of entanglement and a desire to not-reify 'expectation'? 
Can you tell me why you thought that was what I was getting at?  Marsha,
I give you credit for understanding that I cannot attain.  This is not
to say that I think your ideas are better than mine, if I did I would
switch, but I do think that I need to put myself into Marsha's shoes
when I speak with you - and I know that I will do this only terribly.  I
think this is the power of my belief in real, proprietary individuals. 
IF you don't believe in proprietary individuals you will have to think
that you can attain another's perspective - or if not you, at least it
is not theoretically impossible for someone.

Third: to be sure, the idea of an accomplished yogi or genius is not
fantastical to you, right?

fourth: you say, "I can watch patterns flow through consciousness; what
happens before and after I haven't a clue.", but what about at the same
time?  At the same time you are watching your patterns flow through your
consciousness, do you believe that that is all there is, or do you
believe that there patterns which you do not see?

 
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> Marsha
>  
>  

I think only a minute amount of what I might be thinking ;)

Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail...