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

[MarshaV]

On Jul 1, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On 7/1/11 3:35 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jul 1, 2011, at 4:40 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> J-A,
>> 
>> To put it more firmly, I find nothing to exist that is fixed, discrete or
>> permanent, not even in the nature of ghostly patterns
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha 
> 
> 
> Hi Marsha,
> 
> I agree Nothing and Existence cancel each other out.  One is important
> metaphysically as well as mathematically.
> 
> Joe 


Hi Joe,  

Like Value is the ONE which exists and connects MANY?  Isn't that the Tao?  


Marsha

___