[MD] aggregates of grasping

[MarshaV]

Hi Mark,

It seems you cannot understand the difference between an objective, independent existence and a relative, interdependent existence?  Well, I shall not be rushed into presenting a Tractatus, but at the very least a relative, interdependent existence will not require a primary source or a soul.     


Marsha 



On Mar 6, 2012, at 11:55 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> You seem to be using your patterns as objects.  Am I wrong here?  I do
> not see how you are making the patterns something different.  Even
> objects can change, so that does not mean anything different.  It
> would seem that your are simply performing a word change from
> "objects" to "patterns".  How are they different?  We see a pattern on
> a rug, because it repeats itself.  That is what a pattern is.  What is
> it about your patterns that provides such repetition.  How is it that
> you undergo pattern recognition?
> 
> Just seeking clarification for my own understanding.
> 
> Mark
> 
> On 3/6/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 6, 2012, at 3:35 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> I find it interesting that our beloved Marsha, who has consistently denied
>>> her selfness, now denies her ability to form opinions, as well.  After
>>> reviewing Mark's analysis of her March 4 dissertation on feelings and
>>> their ownership, Marsha responded:
>>> 
>>>> I don't know enough to form an opinion.  It is extremely interesting,
>>>> though,
>>>> and I hope to learn more.
>>> 
>>> One can only wonder what all those quotes posted from the Vedanta and
>>> Buddhist scholars are intended to express if not her opinion.  Marsha has
>>> certainly formulated her own opinion of what a SOM pattern is, since
>>> "ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent, static
>>> patterns of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value" has
>>> become the mantra that identifies her.
>> 
>> Hello Ham,
>> 
>> You must have been reading my thoughts, for I have surely been thinking
>> about you, and hoping you would find a way to do what you do so well.
>> 
>> I would like to comment on the term "SOM pattern".  For the expression seems
>> both true and false.  The mind does seem to have evolved to reify ALL useful
>> experience into objects of conception & perception; it is a very insidious
>> tendency.  I do believe my definition of static patterns helps to move one's
>> ideas about "objects" from discrete, bounded, objective entities to ones of
>> pragmatically formed, recursive, interdependent "patterns of value
>> (processes)".
>> 
>> And, yes, I have found much useful detail presented by Vedanta and Buddhist
>> scholars.  It often surprises me how clearly they present very difficult and
>> strange (to the Western way of thinking) ideas. But always I believe one
>> should continually check and verify.
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
> 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