[MD] relative

Tue Jan 10 16:25:59 PST 2012

Obviously your definitions have no value since you cannot explain them another way.  You sound like a born again Christian with your repetition of your Dogma.

Go in peace, my daughter.

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Jan 10, 2012, at 12:36 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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