[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[118]

On 3/5/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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.

Then how do you know that a process occurs if there is not "I" to
affect?  Do you remember anything from when you experience
mindfulness?  I am not saying that an "I" acts, that is just a
projected need for a cause-effect paradigm.  If you drop the "act"
part of it, what are you left with?  That is, what senses the process
and makes it personal and subjective?  The whole paradigm of the
subjective requires a subject.  If everything were simply objective,
then I guess there would be no "I".  Perhaps that is where you are
going with your patterns.  For me, this life is dear, and not some
constructed fantasy outside of my involvement and creation.

I am not speaking of the intellectual construct for "I" for such a
thing does not exist outside the intellect.  I am speaking of the
"intuitive I", or what you call the conventional "I" which is much
more real than any static construct you may come up with.  Do you not
feel you exist?  Should you not pay attention to that feeling rather
than try to  destroy it with static labels?  You may be floating in an
intellectual bubble, but who am I to say such things?

I am, therefore I think.  Or is it there is nothing that thinks
therefore, we cannot think that there might be something that thinks?
Do you see what kind of paradox you have gotten yourself in by
intellectually stating that the "I" does not exist except within the
intellect's ability to deny it exists?  The human "I" does not exist
for a computer, but we humans are a little different.  We are not just
programed by patterns.  I am not sure why you would elevate the
nonexistence of an intellectual "I" above what you are when you, and
only you, looks through your eyes.  Isn't there something special
about that?  I like to think such a thing IS special, and no form of
intellectual logic will dispel that from me.  But, of course that is
me.  And such "I" has nothing to do with the Ego, that would be a
waste of a life.  Programmed by biological needs, and forever needing
to grow larger in order to justify one's self, what a waste of a good
life.  Stay away from pride, is what I was taught, it will destroy.

But, of course, that is my opinion, and you have yours.  All we are
doing is sharing opinions, not trying to convert each other.  That
would be nonsense, for there is nothing to convert, is there?  Feel
safe, your "I" is intact.  Nobody can touch it.  If your "I" simply
changed depending on the influx of patterns, then you had better guard
it with all the Ego you can muster.  For in that case, the "I" would
be open to all sorts of patterned intrusion, some of it perhaps evil.

Cheers,
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
>