[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Ugh... so apparently I was sending e-mail to myself or something.

Tuukka now:

In addition, the exact borders between the patterns are not important 
per se. There is no one correct way of splitting the pattern systems 
(=sets) into four patterns (=subsets). But it is important, that when 
subjective quality and objective quality are split to their respective 
subsets, this split is done in the same way. Whatever the way is, it has 
to be applied twice in the exact same manner, or at least in as similar 
a manner as possible.

-Tuukka




5.3.2012 10:01, MarshaV kirjoitti:
>
>
>
> On Mar 4, 2012, at 2:46 PM, 118<ununoctiums at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even 'free will' is an intellectual static pattern of value.  If you like the pattern, than you do.  I do not like its association with the word 'will' which seems to suggest an entity acting from its own independent impetus, which I totally reject.
>>>>>>>> I do not see free will as static since it cannot be defined.
>>>>>>>>> Concerning DQ, I cannot understand what you would expect me to say about that which is unknowable, undefinable and undividable?   'Not this, not that' seems most appropriate, and of course that would include not 'free will'.  But such a dynamic experience does establish a new appreciation for all static patterns, even 'free will'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well you seemed to have said a lot above.  Maybe more than you should have.  Free will is dynamic experience.  Every moment is choice.  Remember mindfulness?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no 'I' in mindfulness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course there is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>> Oh, excuse me, my mistake...  It is probably true for you that mindfulness includes a huge "I".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marsha
>>>> Yes for me it becomes as big as the universe, there is no dualism sometimes.  It makes me both responsible and Humber.  Funny that.
>>>>
>>>> Of course I am always just speaking of my own experience, as I am sure are you when you experience the absence of "I".  I am not sure how that would feel.  I retain a memory of what happens to me in mindfulness.  Is you experience more impersonal?  Let me know the experience, perhaps I can relate; perhaps we are speaking of the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Mark
>>>
>>> What experience?
>>>
>>>
>> Why yours of course.  Wasn't it you who said that experience is
>> reality.  Perhaps I should say: "Share your reality" to be consistent
>> within your view.  But I understand any hesitation, and the need for
>> privacy even within the avatar format of a discussion.  Whether you
>> share or not is up to you, of course.  I thought it might be
>> meaningful to me.  I hope this clarifies for you what I mean by
>> experience.  If not, I can try to present it in a different way.
>>
>> I do not understand your loss of "I" under mindfulness; I was seeking
>> some enlightenment from you.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>
>>
>
> I already explained my experience of mindfulness:  There is no 'I' in mindfulness.  A process occurs rather than an 'I' that acts.
>
>
> 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
>