[MD] The dirty doors of perception?

[MarshaV]

Mark,

You're asking for the source of static patterns?  Please!  I don't go for that 'first cause/primary source' stuff.  I'm with the Buddha in this regard:

'If this is, that comes to be; from the arising of this, that arises; if this is not, that does not come to be; from the stopping of this, that is stopped.'
   - Buddha

As I wrote previously, from my point-of-view your collection of questions do not seem not to make sense. 


Marsha



On Feb 21, 2012, at 11:28 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> Yes, I can tell that you did not understand my questions since your
> answer did not address them.  I will stop asking you questions.
> Regards,
> Mark
> 
> On 2/20/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>> Sorry, but from my point-of-view your collection of questions do not seem
>> not to make sense.  Conventionally real would equate to stating something is
>> a static pattern, not ultimately real.  Free will and determinism are
>> intellectual static patterns of value, but "To the extent that one's
>> behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice.
>> But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable,
>> one's behavior is free."   (RMP, LILA: Chapter 12).
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 20, 2012, at 4:48 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> That is an interesting opinion.  It does indeed lie within your MoQ as
>>> I have become accustomed to from your posts.  Although I do not quite
>>> see how you tie morality into it.  That word seems out of place in
>>> your paragraph below.
>>> 
>>> The difference is more easily presented in terms of free-will.  The
>>> use of patterns seems to deny such a thing, if I read your post
>>> correctly.  Is free will a pattern, or is it DQ?  Or perhaps it is a
>>> third thing altogether.  The quote you present of Pirsig's is rather
>>> strange.  It creates three things.  DQ, sq, and the individual.  Could
>>> you perhaps explain why you present this triad?  What is it about the
>>> individual that separates him/her from DQ.  I am currently pondering
>>> this as well.
>>> 
>>> I am not sure what you mean by conventionally.  Is a squirrel not real
>>> outside of convention?  When a fox catches a squirrel is that within
>>> the conventional reality?  What is it that forms this convention?  It
>>> would seem that you are making a distinction in realities here, but I
>>> am not quite sure what that is.  Could you provide me a little more
>>> depth to this?  Is Quality conventional or unconventional when we are
>>> pointing towards it.  What would make it unconventional or
>>> conventional in your view?
>>> 
>>> Finally, in terms of your patterns.  What is the source for these
>>> patterns?  Do they exist outside of the need for patterns?  If the
>>> source is our need for them, why do we need them?  If they have no
>>> inherent existence, what does have inherent existence?  If nothing has
>>> inherent existence, then patterns have as much inherent existence as
>>> anything else.  In fact, the term inherent existence can be dropped
>>> completely, or a pattern can be said to have inherent existence
>>> "relative" to something else.  If we use this defenition for inherent
>>> existence, we can say that patterns do have inherent existence.
>>> Otherwise you seem to leave yourself in a vacuum of sorts, and life is
>>> anything but a vacuum.
>>> 
>>> Why would we gravitate and accept something that doesn't exist?  How
>>> can we differentiate between "I" and "You", for it seems that this is
>>> what we do.  The notion that I would be posting a response to you
>>> would not make sense in you metaphysics, and this conversation would
>>> have already been determined before we got involved due to previous
>>> patterns.  With your pattern analogy, how do you get away from
>>> determinism?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>>