[MD] all that is opposite-from-non-pattern

[MarshaV]

On Jul 1, 2011, at 3:49 AM, Jan-Anders Andersson wrote:

> 
> 30 jun 2011 kl. 21.07 Marsha wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 28, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Jan-Anders Andersson wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Marsha
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your humble answer.
>>> 
>>> 28 jun 2011 kl. 15.41 Marsho wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 28, 2011, at 1:40 AM, Jan-Anders Andersson wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Marsha
>>>>> 
>>>>> 27 jun 2011 kl. 18.44 sMarsha wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Not to be repeating myself, I neither accept the notion of freewill, nor reject it.  Same goes with determinism and causation.  I accept that these are conventional (static) notions, but not Ultimately real.  While living within a conventional culture it seems wise to sustain social and biological patterns whenever necessary for one will be held responsible to that level's "moral" code (laws and punishment. ) 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Even if you neither accept nor reject it. I really would like to understand what you mean with "The notion of Free Will". Please.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jan-Anders
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha,
>>>> 
>>>> It means whatever it conventional means.  What is the meaning of the pattern named Justice?  How would you describe its meaning?  How would you describe the meaning of any pattern.   I understand static patterns to represent a collection of interdependent, ever-changing particular momentary events (process) which constantly change as they arise, abide and pass away: and as they are continually altered by an individual?s static history and the dynamics of the event.  I have mentioned before that I tend also to think of patterns, pattern(x) for instance, to include all-that-is opposite-from-non-pattern(x).  That may include a dictionary definition.  -  The horns of a rabbit might be a static notion or pattern.  
>>>> 
>>>> How well do you think you understand my explanation?  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha  
>>> 
>>> Not really sure. You intend to sell a Norwegian Blue Parrot?
>>> 
>>> Try again, please.
>>> 
>>> Jan-Anders
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Jan-Anders,
>> 
>> Within this conventional reality, I tend to think of patterns of value not as fixed or 
>> frozen or reified, but as events or processes, much more fluid and relational.  
>> Defining a spov as all that is opposite-from-non-pattern keeps them closer to 
>> experience in the conventional sense.  imho  
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
> 
> Hi Marsha
> 
> I wonder if you remember my earlier posts some year ago when I described how we can prolong the Kantian questioning of the perceptions that we got and how it is separated from the the object (a table) per se?
> 
> We can put another table upon the first table and find that there are things that we can say about the table per se as it has a RELATION to the other table and that it is this relation between them that is undeniable and objectively exists as we can prove it by comparing them to each other. Positivism.. comparing, measuring, creating a relation to a standard ruler or something like that. This is also what Descartes did when he put his own thinking in RELATION to his own thinking and found that to make a relation there must exist real relative objects. Cogito ergo sum...
> 
> The relation between fixed patterns are the interesting thing, not so much the patterns per se. But the patterns are important in the same way as letters and combinations of letters are making words and sentences. Just because the meaning of a word or a sentence can be discussed and make people laugh doesn't mean that also the letters themselves have to be funny.
> 
> Quality is very interesting just as static patterns. Dynamic patters like evolution and growth, drama and soap or just normal living in either a romantic or classic view, conscious or unconscious, about art, arete, quality, are ways of experiencing and better understanding The Quality. Our goal is to better understand and dance with Quality. RMP's contribution with the MOQ and the 4 levels are very useful, isn't it?
> 
> May I?
> 
> Right?     Left?       East?
> 
> Jan-Anders


Greetings Jan-Anders,

Off the top of my head...  No way do I experience patterns as a fixed ideals.  They are ever-changing, impermanent and relative.  Another reason I like the all that is opposite-from-non-pattern(x) is because it represents a whole.  Using justice again, both the foreground (justice) and the background (non-justice) are present.  One is less likely to isolate or privilege the foreground over the background, and also less likely to substantiate the foreground (justice).  The relationships are always present.  

Yes, the four levels are extremely useful.  But for me the emphasis is how to break the natural tendency to reify.  The subject-object habit needs to be, at least, loosened.  Replacing the word object with the word pattern just doesn't cut it.  Of course this opposite-from-non-pattern strategy is still an intellectual exercise, and needs experience to reinforce it.  Meditation.   imho   As far as letters go, A, whether it be a letter, a word or a concept, is always in relation to non-A; that's whether the relationship is acknowledged or not.  The either/or-subject/object way of defining the world is expanded.   


Marsha 

 
___