[MD] The first cut.

[MarshaV]

Mark,

Having established yourself as one who knows it all and can drop names, I'd bet you think your post is impressive, but is meaningless to me.  For me it's simply reality = experience(unpatterened/patterned).  


Marsha



Sent from my iPad

On Feb 1, 2012, at 12:22 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Marsha,
> I am not asking for somebody else's opinion, I am asking for yours.
> Please explain in your own words what you mean by "direct experience"
> so that I can understand where you are coming from.  If you use
> Wittgenstein I have to assume that you find his method of analysis as
> enlightening.  His method, at least in its first incarnation,
> speculated that all awareness was through the prism of language.
> Having established that for his own continuation of exposition, he
> then analyzed "being" through a rigorous analysis of the structure of
> language.  he later became less structural and more specific,
> analyzing problems in isolation.
> 
> This deconstruction is similar to existentialism, which prefers a
> mechanical world that we must find ourselves extranged within.  This
> would be similar to the pattern approach which you provide, it would
> seem.  Indeed, the existential movement which perhaps began with
> Kierkegaard, minimizes the importance of Self, but in a nihilistic
> fashion (IMO), unlike the presentations of Hume or Buddha, which, of
> course, Kant was against.  With such effort comes a decrease in
> responsibility.  With many of these philosophers there is a distiction
> between Value and Fact.  It is my understanding that MoQ seeks to
> place things under the umbrella of Value (thus the "Q").  If your
> pattern approach is indeed a Value approach, some explanation is
> needed.
> 
> The deconstruction provided by modern science does the same thing.
> For example, the promises of evolutionary theory, puts us in a
> determinsistic world of the "Selfish Gene".  However, we know that the
> parts are not the whole.  We act as if personal Will is present, which
> should be proof enough that it is.  For even a newborn infant has
> Will.
> 
> I am not sure if this deconstruction is the direction in which MoQ can
> most fruitfully proceed, but that is obviously my opinion.  As I learn
> more of what you are proposing, perhaps I will become more comfortable
> with it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
>