[MD] relative

[MarshaV]

Mark,  

I have stated numerous times that the “self” is 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.  Sorry, but your questions make no sense to me, and I am getting quite bored repeating the same definitions.  Perhaps it is hidden from you.   


Marsha 



On Jan 10, 2012, at 1:24 PM, 118 wrote:

> 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



 
___