[MD] relative

[118]

Hi Marsha,
It seems that I did not ask my question in the right way (although I
tried many different ways), as your answer did not address the
question.

So, now I ask it in a different way: What is this "self" that you say
does not exist.  You must be pointing at something that you are
denying the existence of.  What is it?  For example, you say that
"patterns" exist, what are you pointing to there?  If these do not
exist either, then we are left with the term "existence" meaning
nothing.  If this is the case, then there is nothing to discuss.  Any
metaphysics requires the acceptance of existence in order to provide a
structure of such.  More below.

On 1/10/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> 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?

Marsha, the pea/pod remark I made was a joke (did you see the
smiley?).  Who is making the mountain?
>
>
>> 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...

Again, Marsha, this was a joke.  Don't take it so personally.  I do
not even know you.  Too many mountains on your side.  Liberation is
being free of all that "self" that you feel you need to protect.
Every time you say "I" think of the context in which you are using
that word.
>
>
>> 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).

If this is true, then what do you base your metaphysics on?  What are
you denying the existence of?  Do patterns exist, or are you left with
another absurd.  You need to start somewhere, or else you have nothing
to discuss except that you have nothing to discuss.  You provide a
string of adjectives which are supposed to describe something.  What
is that something that you are describing?  It appears to me that with
"patterns" you are subscribing to the concept of Form.  Is this true?
If it is, we can start there since much has been written over the ages
on Form.  Let me know.
>
>
>> 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.

Marsha, I am not asking for reasons, or anything that needs
discovering.  We are discussing the undiscovering of self, if I
understand you correctly.  If such a thing is indeed important, please
explaion why.  What does it do for "you".

Again, you bring in the concept of patterns.  As near as I can tell,
we create these patterns by simplifying a vast amount of input.  This
is DQ to sq.  You state that these patterns create us.  This is at
odds with Pirsig's concept of ghosts, we created the ghost of
gravitational theory by imposing patterns.  Perhaps it is ghosts
creating ghosts.  If so, what are these things ghosts of?  A ghost
must represent something, right?  What is a pattern in you
metaphysics?
>
>
>> 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?

Yes, this is my question.  You seem to be sliding into nihilism here
by presenting a set of questions which seem rhetorical.  If they are
not rhetorical, answer your questions so that we can begin a
discussion on this.  If you do not wish to discuss, I can abide by
that.
>
>
>> 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.

My question is quite simple.  What are you pointing to when you bring
in "patterns"?  What is it that you are discovering?  It seems that
you are switching one term for another.  Is "self" any less real than
"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"?  Why
would you say that one is more real than another?  Once I understand
this, I can begin to understand your metaphysics.

It would seem that you are using the term "nothing" in a derogatory
fashion.  I thought you subscribed to Nothingness, but now you seem to
think it is bad.  Am I mistaken here?

Again, if you wish to end the discussion and present your metaphysics
as unquestionable, I am fine with that.

Peace,
Mark
>
>
>>>>
> 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
>