[MD] relative

Mon Jan 9 17:50:23 PST 2012

Well, this has been interesting.  Another who has stepped into
Marsha's paranoid world.  It is almost as fun to read as to
participate in.  Peas in a pod indeed.  It is Marsha against the World
of pea podders :-)!

But Marsha, let me "attack you visciously" once again.  Yes, you know
it, all stops are out since you know that I am out to destroy you :-).
 Better yet, please assume that I am asking a question to better
understand your philosophy.  And, the question is:!

If the self is just a name for "a collection of ever-changing,
dependent, contingent patterns, are there patterns which are not
"self"?  If there are, how do you differentiate between the "self",
and the "non-self"?  What is it about the "self" that makes it
different, perhaps even special to some of us?  Once I understand how
you identify "self" as you use it, I will have a better idea of what
you mean.  To phrase it a different way: What is it you mean by "self"
that makes it different from other patterns?

Ooops that was more than one question from me, but it can be one
question relatively combined through related sentences for you, if you
know what I mean.

And, to continue in a relative sense, if you will:  In a relative
world is "a collection of ever-changing, dependent, contingent
patterns" more real than the "self"?  In other words, if self is
simply something else, is that something else the real deal?  Does
descriptive language trump that which is forming the language?  Do
your patterns set the stage for "self" even though it is you who is
creating that terminology?  Is the pattern of Marsha creating the
identity of that pattern, or is it the other way around?

Sorry for all the questions,

Thank you,
Mark

On 1/8/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Tuukka,
>
> Of course I will read your paper.  But my interest in the MoQ is as a bridge
> between the West's objective science and the East's introspective
> understanding of Mind.  There are many possible truths; there should be room
> for many ways of exploring the MoQ.  And I am not concerned with my
> reputation.  I am not ignorant of the fact that the so-called “I”, the self,
> is just a convenient name for a collection of ever-changing, dependent,
> contingent patterns.
>
> I am sure your presentation is a tremendous effort and contribution, and I
> look forward to reading it.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 8, 2012, at 4:34 AM, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Marsha,
>>
>> but that's no side track. You see, this is actually the way I _do_
>> philosophy. I talk with people in order to get new ideas myself, and I
>> focus on details just to understand them.
>>
>> Do you want a recap of what my system is about? Maybe you should read
>> these:
>>
>> History of the MOQ as I see it:
>>
>> http://www.moq.fi/?p=6
>>
>> How I originally arrived at my notion of recursive patterns, which later,
>> with Matt's help, evolved into cyclical morality:
>>
>> http://www.moq.fi/?p=106
>>
>> Note that the latter page is slightly out of date with regards to naming.
>> It also introduces a "Networking ontology" that as of now is poorly
>> defined, and probably fig. 8. is wrong in that it does not correctly
>> portray the relationship between networking ontology and other ontologies
>> within recursive patterns. I'm working on this.
>>
>> You asked on what my Western certainty is based on. I don't understand
>> what you mean with that. I am that certainty. But I think a more
>> appropriate word for it would be "faith". I think Wittgenstein's book "On
>> Certainty" is a good book, and that's the book he wrote after giving up on
>> the aim he set in Tractatus, according to which everything should be
>> expressed with logically consistent language. Frankly, I am disappointed
>> that you perceive me as a fool who embraces such certainty. And I don't
>> understand why you gave me sarcastic compliments earlier. Compliments are
>> a great thing to have, and if you introduce doubt to them, you are being
>> quite mean. Do you understand I have sacrificed everything in my life that
>> I needed to for this MOQ venture, which includes not having a job and not
>> studying? So I think I don't deserve that. Many people could live like me,
>> but apparently they don't want to, so why should someone be envious if I
>> get a lot of compliments? Why are you being mean? Isn't it you who are
>> sidetracking this conversation? I saw a dream of you last night. You were
>> creating here something others didn't understand at first, but then they
>> understood better. Are you envious of me or why are you being sarcastic? I
>> don't want that. It wasn't a very nice way of waking up this morning to
>> have a social level argument with you accusing me of getting sidetracked
>> after being fakely glad for me for my foresight. Why can't everyone in
>> this discussion board, and not just me, get sidetracked when they want to?
>> I don't have a reputation of doing that to the point of distracting and
>> disturbing conversations.
>>
>> You are much respected at LS, Marsha. So is Skutvik. So what's the pattern
>> here? If someone is respected at LS, and they run into me, they will at
>> first have an argument with me? You know, the kindergarden-type of
>> argument. I haven't really had such arguments, or any kind of
>> disappointing or "dirty-feeling" arguments, with any other type of person
>> in the MOQ community. I could have had one with Tim right after we met,
>> but he didn't even pretend that argument was about philosophy, so it was
>> easy for me to just say I don't want to have that argument with him. We
>> didn't talk to each other for maybe in a month, but now we like each
>> other.
>>
>> -Tuukka
>>
>>
>>
>> 8.1.2012 2:58, MarshaV kirjoitti:
>>> Tuukka,
>>>
>>> You gotta find it much more difficult to explain your own system (chart
>>> and article), than to get side-tracked focusing of Buddhism's "relative
>>> truths".
>>>
>>>
>>> Marsha
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 7, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Tuukka Virtaperko<mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Marsha,
>>>> you gotta have poor self-esteem or something as to interpret that what
>>>> you said didn't work for me.
>>>>
>>>> -Tuukka
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 8.1.2012 1:14, MarshaV kirjoitti:
>>>>> Tuukka,
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose your certainty is a Western attitude, but I do wonder on what
>>>>> it is based?  You know all about the future for the West, the Uni, and
>>>>> Western scholars.  That's quite remarkable!   So glad to have given you
>>>>> the opportunity to offer such great foresight and wisdom.  Your
>>>>> brilliance is amazing.  But to repeat what I wrote yesterday, my
>>>>> explorations and definition of 'static patterns of value' are based on
>>>>> my understanding of static quality and Buddhism's conventional
>>>>> (relative) truths.  If it doesn't work for you, please ignore it.  I'll
>>>>> do the same with what you present.  Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>
>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>