[MD] relative

[MarshaV]

Hello Mark,


On Jan 9, 2012, at 8:50 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 :-)!

The pea/pod remark was an observation, not a complaint.  You do like to build a mountain from a mole hill, don't you?


> 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:!

See above... 


> 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"?  

If there is no 'inherently existing self', there is no 'inherent non-existing self' either, and your 
question becomes absurd.  There is no way to differentiate between what does not exist and what does not not exist.  'Self' is a "'convenient designator" for a flow of conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized patterns (experiences).


> What is it about the "self" that makes it different, perhaps even special to some of us?  

That seems a good and important question to investigate.  There may be many, many reasons, and one should discover them all.  But even without an 'inherently existing self', one can still respect and rejoice that one is a flow of patterns (experiences).  If one is paying attention there still is freedom and happiness in that awareness.  -  One could point to evolution as the reason,  but then Cancer has been evolutionarily successful too.  -  The point is that it is a case of mistaken identity, an illusion. To think of the self as an independent, controlling homunculus is a fiction.  


> 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?

It isn't different from other patterns.  What are patterns?  What are patterns not? 


> 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?

I have no idea what you are presenting or asking.  Within the MoQ, “self”, be it 'Marsha' or 'Mark', is a convenient designator for a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent and conceptualized static patterns of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality.  It doesn't make you a puddle of nothing to discover this for yourself.


> Sorry for all the questions,

No problem.  

> Thank you,
> Mark


Marsha



> 
> 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
>>>