[MD] East meets West

[Jan Anders Andersson]

07151013.ACD6625DB96 at homiemail-mx19.g.dreamhost.com> <CAP2xam73UTDnAbDnhanCOx_-fRFxkRz+-37f_PMg0voirEjHbg at mail.gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)

Thanks Mark

Hope you enjoy the read. Don't forget to put Lila on that list.

Here's todays score:

Barcelona, Catalonia
Madrid, Madrid
Milan, Lombardia
Örebro, Örebro Län
Vittoria, Sicilia
New Delhi, Delhi
Rome, Lazio
Zaragoza, Aragon
Latina, Lazio
La Orotava, Canarias
Cumberland, Maryland
San Benigno Canavese, Piemonte
Terni, Umbria
Nashville, Tennessee
Badalona, Catalonia
Serracapriola, Puglia
Chambly, Quebec
Besançon, Franche-Comte
Vibo Valentia, Calabria
Milano, Lombardia

As you see, an ever changing pattern...

Jan Anders

8 okt 2012 kl. 08.05 skrev 118:

> Hi Anders,
> Yes, MoQ is a model, but it is only one model out of many possible ones.
> The model is not Quality.  The model gives an example on how to see things
> through the Quality paradigm.  My suggestion is that you look beyond the
> model, and ask why Pirsig used this model.  Why did he choose a scientific
> model for the levels?  Why did he only create DQ and SQ, when similar
> metaphysics tend to create a triad?  What does DQ represent?  What does SQ
> represent?  Why does he refer to his past as a different person?  Why does
> he perseverate on insanity?
> 
> People seem to be too caught up in the model.  Hate to break it to you, but
> it is just a model. I can paint a landscape for you, and I don't think you
> would confuse the painting with the actual landscape.  The model attempts
> to lead one into the paradigm of Quality.  This paradigm is a different way
> of seeing reality.  I am not sure why everybody is so set on the model
> itself.  It is just a tool to provide awareness.  Like I said, Pirsig could
> have used any number of models to present Quality.  The point is, use the
> model as a starting point, and then go out into the real world and see how
> it changes.
> 
> JA, Pirsig has presented you with a doorway.  Stop loitering at the
> threshold analyzing what the door is made out of.  Move along, there is
> much to see.  Quality has got nothing to do with levels and such.  Those
> are just signposts.  First you have to get on the trail, then you can write
> back on what you find, just like Pirsig did.  You don't have to use the
> same model, in fact you probably won't.  But you will still be describing
> the same thing.
> 
> There is no definition for Quality.  First one starts with Quality and then
> makes definitions.  Quality is not an object, it is a form of awareness.
> It is a way of looking a the world differently.  It cannot be analyzed
> through SOM, it is in a different language.
> 
> Why do you think Pirsig wrote his second book?  It certainly was not to
> provide a final model for reality.  It was a set of instructions for each
> of us to create our own models using the principles from Quality.  Don't
> get so caught up in somebody else's model.  Remember, he said that a
> metaphysics is degenerate.  Yet it seems that Quality has been replaced
> with the degenerate example. MoQ is not a religion where we have to obey
> the commands.  Let go of the model!  Get outside!
> 
> Yes, MALC is on my reading list (on my iphone).  I will pay attention this
> time and try to understand what you have to say about Quality, and why such
> awareness is different from standard Subject/Object awareness.  Give me a
> little while.
> 
> All the best,
> Mark
> 
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 8:10 AM, <jananderses at telia.com> wrote:
> 
>> 1E-9E23-46E0-9E6E-6310ECEB6E77 at telia.com> <
>> ECCC69C1-1DE3-4955-A888-8A517A35E855 at gmail.com>
>> From: Jan Anders Andersson <jananderses at telia.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;
>>        charset=utf-8
>> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10A403)
>> In-Reply-To: <ECCC69C1-1DE3-4955-A888-8A517A35E855 at gmail.com>
>> Message-Id: <D64C6C8F-B4A3-47F3-BD19-9061764D29C0 at telia.com>
>> Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 17:10:10 +0200
>> To: "moq_discuss at moqtalk.org" <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
>> 
>> Mark and others
>> 
>> Making an intellectual model of something is just what Metaphysics is
>> about.=
>> There is no thing like "my MOQ" Mark. The MOQ comes from the book "Lila,
>> an=
>> inquiry into morals" by Robert Pirsig. I wrote a crazy road story based
>> on M=
>> OQ, how an odd couple could might behave with a MOQ perspective in mind.
>> The=
>> result for John, one of the characters in the play, is that he comes to
>> und=
>> erstand how time, money and sex is related to each other. John experiences
>> s=
>> ome sort of "balance" in three dimensions, energy, form and value. The
>> cause=
>> of this balance is the same as Quality, (the undefinable number 43). The
>> ba=
>> lancing act is the forever and permanently infinite and unfinished issue
>> of d=
>> efining Quality, the result of which is Dynamic and Static Quality. The
>> worl=
>> d as we know it so far is a good try to understand Quality so far.
>> Therefore=
>> you can't never find the ultimate definition of Quality because that
>> would b=
>> e the end of time and the end of the world, the end of "The Big Note".
>> 
>> Understanding Quality, as you say is your main cause of being here on this
>> f=
>> orum, is the way of finding the "balance of Excellence"; the balance
>> between=
>> energy, form and value. Any unbalance is the cause behind the next moment
>> o=
>> f action. Betterness is always at hand. (But there is no guarantee that it
>> w=
>> ill be better.)
>> 
>> 1. If someone reads your contribution and thinks "it's too many words",
>> then=
>> it have an energy-amount unbalancing problem with the rhetoric quality.
>> 2. If someone read it and think "it's impossible to read because it's so
>> man=
>> y words in French", then it is something about the Form of the message,
>> not a=
>> bout the number of words as in example 1.
>> 3. If someone reads the same text as in exmpl 1 and 2 but think "I
>> understan=
>> d this text quite good but this is not something I am going to use when I
>> am=
>> practicing on my motorcycle", then you might have been writing for the
>> wron=
>> g person, someone that sees no Value in your text.
>> 
>> If someone read your text and think "This is a good text" then you might
>> jus=
>> t have wrote something smart with a few words that someone finds useful
>> for s=
>> ome reason. If the reader call it useful because it solves some problem in
>> t=
>> he right way it might be called an intellectual truth that saturates his
>> exp=
>> ectations so far. If the text just makes him laugh, it could be considered
>> t=
>> o satisfy his momentary need for pleasure and relax from too much
>> seriousnes=
>> s in the world. Something doesn't have to be perfect, balance is mostly
>> just=
>> about better than worse. If the text makes him sexually aroused then it
>> hit=
>> s the biological need for information, even though it could be a grey lie.
>> 
>> There is another discussion here going on right now which is a good
>> example o=
>> f misunderstanding the difference between Energy, Form and Value called "a
>> Z=
>> en Truth". They are mixing up and crosstalking to each other if something
>> ex=
>> ist, (energy), misreading Form to be Value and vice versa. Form can be
>> objec=
>> tively measured but the Value is always different to anybody, because we
>> as s=
>> ubjects are always different (ultimately undefined) from each other and
>> alwa=
>> ys see a different value on something with a form in common.
>> 
>> As an example, we have a couple of tomatoes, there are four tomatoes, we
>> can=
>> prove that they objectively exist, we can weigh and count them, (if there
>> a=
>> re no tomatoes we cannot count them or throw them in someone's face;
>> "Tomato=
>> ergo sum" :-)...)
>> We can discuss and agree that they are objectively more round than flat,
>> mos=
>> tly red and not blue. Finally we can take two of them each and eat them or
>> j=
>> ust do what we feel. The taste of your tomatoes to you and the taste of
>> mine=
>> , our experience from these four tomatoes will always be a personal
>> evaluati=
>> on.
>> 
>> You see? If you doesn't understand the difference between energy, form and
>> v=
>> alue, you will get trapped in a maze from there is no way out but madness.
>> 
>> If we return to the MOQ, which is a four-level perspective on Cosmological
>> e=
>> volution, we can see that a balance in the three dimensions are present at
>> a=
>> ny level and the lowest common denominator is time:
>> At the inorganic level we know pretty well that Every kind of physical
>> exist=
>> ing matter is a result of an energy acting with good timing. Bad timing
>> resu=
>> lts in chaos and radioactive decay until another stabile pattern arises.
>> At the organic level we know all the kind of examples of surviving
>> strategie=
>> s that leads to either succes or extinction for species.
>> At the social level money, love and warfare are some of the most important
>> i=
>> ngredients for success, but saved time is for ever present.
>> At the intellectual level the most timesaving concept and formula is
>> called t=
>> rue and best. "Eternal truths" are regarded as very good patterns with a
>> lon=
>> g-life guarantee, however questioned by Buddhists and other artists...
>> 
>> It is hard to intellectually handle all this but we have inside us, since
>> eo=
>> ns of evolution, a sensory system called the emotional system. This
>> emotion s=
>> ystem is serving us with different kind of signals that tells us if it
>> somet=
>> hing about energy, form or value. By understanding intellectually how this
>> r=
>> eally works, it is more easy to understand the signal system that we
>> already=
>> have at hand.
>> 
>> Goodness, betterness, quality and stupid behaviour is just not something
>> int=
>> ellectual, is is also something of practical matter.
>> 
>> You maybe have to reread MALC again...=20
>> but if you have it as ebook, you can always search up and bookmark the
>> more i=
>> nteresting parts.
>> 
>> Jan Anders
>> 
>> 
>> 6 okt 2012 kl. 23:23 skrev 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com>:
>> 
>>> Hi JA,
>>> This is a good question.  I was defining it as Aristotle did, that is,
>> bey=
>> ond physics.  Your MoQ seems pure physics to me.  I am sure I am wrong.  I
>> d=
>> on't place much importance in thermodynamics.  You work scientifically
>> with y=
>> our defined variables and form equations.  What do you do with those
>> things t=
>> hat are not variables?  Such as "existence" for example.  How does your
>> MoQ d=
>> escribe personal existence?
>>> =20
>>> Metaphysics is more than simply providing a model as you have.  Don't
>> you t=
>> hink?  What about Quality?  How does that fit in to your view?
>>> =20
>>> Cheers,
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> Mark
>>> =20
>>> On Oct 6, 2012, at 12:17 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <jananderses at telia.com>
>> w=
>> rote:
>>> =20
>>>> 45-A43A-4CDF-AFB9-EF6AB7DCFD9D at telia.com>
>> <1D79B970-4F8C-4CEA-BB51-4905F6=
>> 7327C1 at gmail.com>
>>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>>> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
>>>> =20
>>>> High Mark
>>>> =20
>>>> You seem to be a funny guy.
>>>> =20
>>>> How do you define Metaphysic?
>>>> =20
>>>> Jan Anders
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> 5 okt 2012 kl. 23.24 skrev 118:
>>>> =20
>>>>> Hi JA,
>>>>> Certainly thermodynamics is an accepted scientific method for the
>> presen=
>> tation of "what is".  As a physical biochemist I am aware of its
>> shortcoming=
>> s.  It is a self contained system that is based on definitions.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> However, if it helps you to explain a Quality approach to perceiving
>> rea=
>> lity, more power to you.  I am working beyond thermodynamics in the area
>> of m=
>> etaphysics.  Such interpretation goes beyond the equations you are fond of.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> Mark
>>>>> =20
>>>>> On Oct 5, 2012, at 2:35 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <
>> jananderses at telia.com>=
>> wrote:
>>>>> =20
>>>>>> m4ite7=3D+nN8gO_fWQ0v2YmGtrnCmRDVi=3Dt4pecPJRvKWg at mail.gmail.com>
>> <ADD4=
>> B706-379B-4512-8DB9-F45881F92EAA at telia.com>
>> <CAP2xam6OLqeVDm_f=3DTOY_zTUK8vD=
>> aXTeF4b8SRh1QWR_X=1F1A at mail.gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>>>>> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> Thanks Mark.
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> 4 levels and 3 dimensions of the thermodynamics is enough for me so
>> far=
>> .
>>>>>> I have some funny ideas for a sequel but nothing definite yet. I
>> think y=
>> ou will be surprised anyway.
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> One track takes a lot of math and physics to read first.
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> Don't forget to post a review on iTunes bookstore.
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> May betterness be with you
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> Jan Anders
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> 5 okt 2012 kl. 07.35 skrev 118:
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> Hi JA,
>>>>>>> Congratulations!
>>>>>>> Hope you have a sequel in the works.  Don't wait 20 years and write
>> on=
>> e
>>>>>>> just out of necessity!  Remember, beware of fame.
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> I have been using MoQ for almost 40 years now and am not even aware
>> of=
>> it.
>>>>>>> That is, until I post on this forum to explain how it works.  I hope
>> y=
>> our
>>>>>>> wrench is becoming more handy for you.  All it takes is practice, my
>>>>>>> friend.  You will get the hang of it and forget you are using it too.
>>>>>>> Leave the instructions behind and let the motorcycle become you.
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Jan Anders Andersson
>>>>>>> <jananderses at telia.com>wrote:
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> m4ite7=3D+nN8gO_fWQ0v2YmGtrnCmRDVi=3Dt4pecPJRvKWg at mail.gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>>>>>>> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> Hi Mark
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> Today's score: (all these funny names sounds like some weird
>> poetry, n=
>> ot
>>>>>>>> to mention the list of the names of the =E2=80=98likers=E2=80=99)
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> =C3=96rebro, =C3=96rebro L=C3=A4n
>>>>>>>> London, England'
>>>>>>>> San Benigno Canavese, Piemonte
>>>>>>>> Rohtak, Haryana
>>>>>>>> Vadodara, Gujarat
>>>>>>>> New Delhi, Delhi
>>>>>>>> Norwich, England
>>>>>>>> Mysore, Karnataka
>>>>>>>> Mandatoriccio, Calabria
>>>>>>>> Kohima, Nagaland
>>>>>>>> Zaragoza, Aragon
>>>>>>>> Conversano, Puglia
>>>>>>>> Waterloo, Ontario
>>>>>>>> Toronto, Ontario
>>>>>>>> Metz, Lorraine
>>>>>>>> Moncton, New Brunswick
>>>>>>>> Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
>>>>>>>> Gropello Cairoli, Lombardia
>>>>>>>> Amravati, Maharashtra
>>>>>>>> Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> Seems like East and US is losing ground...
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> Keep up the good reading, don't forget to take care of the organic
>> le=
>> vel
>>>>>>>> in between.
>>>>>>>> The world out there is waiting for you using your MOQ wrench.
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> Jan Anders
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> 3 okt 2012 kl. 05.44 skrev 118:
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> Hi Jan Anders,
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the input on your book.  I must admit I did read
>> your b=
>> ook
>>>>>>>>> rather quickly as I do sometimes to get the overall feel of a book
>> s=
>> uch
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> this.  I appreciate the time you took to provide more explanation.
>> I=
>> am
>>>>>>>>> providing some MoQ related comments below, so that you can get an
>> id=
>> ea
>>>>>>>>> where I am coming from so far as Quality is concerned.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <
>>>>>>>> jananderses at telia.com
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> I think you should be interested of what "Money and the Art of
>> Losi=
>> ng
>>>>>>>>>> Control" has to do with MOQ as it seems that you want to know
>> more a=
>> bout
>>>>>>>>>> Quality. MALC is generally a story about how to USE (or not
>> use:-) t=
>> he
>>>>>>>>>> knowledge of MOQ and Quality in our daily ordinary life.  I don't
>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>> MOQ to be just some mind game. It's an intellectual tool to be
>> used=
>> .
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> Mark:
>>>>>>>>> I believe this is a place where we may differ in terms of Quality.
>> W=
>> e
>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>> probably agree that MoQ is a metaphysical presentation of what
>> Pirsi=
>> g
>>>>>>>> terms
>>>>>>>>> Quality.  He uses this term with good reason since we all know what
>>>>>>>> Quality
>>>>>>>>> is without having to define it.  However, it is my impression that
>>>>>>>> Quality
>>>>>>>>> does not fit within the traditional S/O interpretation of reality.
>> =
>> For
>>>>>>>> me,
>>>>>>>>> Quality is a manner of interpreting reality in a manner which does
>> a=
>> way
>>>>>>>>> with subjects and objects.  Therefore, when I think of "using"
>> Quali=
>> ty, I
>>>>>>>>> think in terms of interpreting the world as Quality (seeing the
>> worl=
>> d as
>>>>>>>>> objectless).  The metaphysics presented in MoQ is one example of
>> how=
>> this
>>>>>>>>> can be done, but the interpretation of existence through a Quality
>>>>>>>> paradigm
>>>>>>>>> can be explained in many ways.  While the levels are interesting,
>> th=
>> ey
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> not necessary for beginning a journey by Quality.  This should be
>>>>>>>> obvious,
>>>>>>>>> since many people knew what Quality was long before Lila was
>> written=
>> .
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> JA:  One of the most basic issues of the MOQ is change. Without
>> cha=
>> nge
>>>>>>>>>> there would be no cosmological evolution. Without the possibility
>> o=
>> f a
>>>>>>>>>> change there would be no meaning in motorcycle maintenance,
>> getting=
>> 
>>>>>>>> drunk
>>>>>>>>>> and picking up bar ladies.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> Mark:
>>>>>>>>> As presented, MoQ could encompass change.  It would not be the
>> first=
>> 
>>>>>>>>> metaphysics to do so, since an interpretation through science also
>> b=
>> rings
>>>>>>>>> change to the forefront.  So I do not think that Change is a big
>> par=
>> t of
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> interpretation through Quality.  I think the main force of such
>>>>>>>>> interpretation comes from the ability to completely dismiss
>> subjects=
>> and
>>>>>>>>> objects.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> JA:  Change deserves time-space. Time is crucial for the
>> experience=
>> of
>>>>>>>>>> Quality because there is a moment before the experience, under and
>>>>>>>> after.
>>>>>>>>>> Every pattern is repeated, from time to time, it is frequently
>>>>>>>> recurring.
>>>>>>>>>> Truth is something that we can presume will occur again with great
>>>>>>>>>> significance. Every time it meets our expectations we will call
>> it t=
>> rue.
>>>>>>>>>> =46rom the smallest Higgs-Boson particle to galaxies in the
>> univers=
>> e we
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> see that it is a Way, Pattern or Method, to gain Energy, with its
>> Fo=
>> rm
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> with its Value. If something doesn't have a certain amount of
>> Energ=
>> y, a
>>>>>>>>>> characteristic Form and an influencing Value, it is not proved to
>> e=
>> xist
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> a real static pattern.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> Mark:
>>>>>>>>> I understand why you bring in traditional scientific paradigms,
>> for t=
>> hat
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> what we are brought up with.  However, such examples can lead
>> direct=
>> ly
>>>>>>>> away
>>>>>>>>> from an appreciation of Quality.  For what science does is create
>> ob=
>> jects
>>>>>>>>> as its main mode of interpretation of reality.  These objects are
>> ve=
>> ry
>>>>>>>>> misleading and can cloud any understanding of awareness through
>> Qual=
>> ity.
>>>>>>>>> The more objects and examples one brings in from this scientific
>>>>>>>>> discipline, the more one is drawn away from Pirsig's Quality, in my
>>>>>>>> opinion.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> However, I do see what you are trying to do, and i like your
>> example=
>> s.
>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>> make things up like Energy and Patterns, for that is our way
>>>>>>>>> of interpreting existence in traditional Western ways. That is, we
>> c=
>> reate
>>>>>>>>> these things.  That we see there is a Way, it is only because we
>> hav=
>> e
>>>>>>>>> created such a Way.  Of course this is important, since it is of
>> gre=
>> at
>>>>>>>>> value to make the cosmos personal.  The world we create "out
>> there" i=
>> s
>>>>>>>>> actually happening in our heads and is determined by the make up
>> of o=
>> ur
>>>>>>>>> bodies.  It is the interaction of that "out there" and our bodies
>> th=
>> at
>>>>>>>>> becomes the reality we are sensing.  As such, we cannot rightly
>> sepa=
>> rate
>>>>>>>>> ourselves from that which we see. They are both the same thing.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> JA:  The conditions that let matter, patterns arise as Static
>> Value=
>> s
>>>>>>>>>> depending on Dynamic Quality are important to know. One of the
>> most=
>> 
>>>>>>>>>> important experiences for any pattern is the time experience.
>> Befor=
>> e,
>>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>>>> and later.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> Mark:
>>>>>>>>> So far as I can tell, patterns do not arrise, we create them.  We
>> ar=
>> e
>>>>>>>>> responsible for the patterns by which we interpret the world.
>> Witho=
>> ut
>>>>>>>>> anybody to create these patterns they do not exist.  Patterning is
>> o=
>> ne of
>>>>>>>>> the highest achievements of Man.  The other one is, of course,
>> humor=
>> .
>>>>>>>>> Matter does not arise, we bring it to life and call it matter.  We
>> a=
>> re
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> creators of such matter since they become patterns in our heads.
>> Th=
>> is is
>>>>>>>>> what is meant by the Ghost of Reason.  Matter as we traditionally
>> us=
>> e the
>>>>>>>>> word is a ghost, it is a fabrication.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> JA:  Every event, every episode in the book MALC is an example of
>> t=
>> he
>>>>>>>>>> influence of Quality and the levels affecting our reality
>> patterns.=
>> The
>>>>>>>>>> trip starts and ends at the same place, like a circular movement.
>> I=
>> t has
>>>>>>>>>> its certain top and bottom points. Every emotional sensation is
>>>>>>>>>> representing a value transmitted to the owner of the human
>> pattern,=
>> how
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> read the 42 guiding "lights" from the biological level and make
>> the=
>> best
>>>>>>>>>> choice from that. Biological patterns build their patterns upon
>> the=
>> ir
>>>>>>>>>> experience from inorganic characteristic patterns. When Elsa is a
>> s=
>> leep,
>>>>>>>>>> when John falls asleep, they are leaving the social level and all
>> t=
>> hat
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> left is their biological and inorganic patterns. Social patterns
>> de=
>> pend
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> biological values, some time it is true, sometime the intellectual
>>>>>>>> pattern
>>>>>>>>>> in the mind mirror show a false picture of the social level.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> Mark:
>>>>>>>>> OK, cool, I will keep that in mind when I get there (second time
>> aro=
>> und).
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> JA:   When the spear passes Johns face he's facing the danger of a
>>>>>>>>>> One-dimensional pattern thrown by a disguised enemy with an untrue
>>>>>>>> Quality
>>>>>>>>>> experience. The dogs represents static power with not much
>> intellec=
>> tual
>>>>>>>>>> understanding. Our modern era dominated by Monetaristic thinking
>> is=
>> very
>>>>>>>>>> dangerus because it is sort of a one-dimensional pattern. The
>> "econ=
>> omic
>>>>>>>>>> man" is so primitive and that is why I suspect Ayn Rand to be a
>>>>>>>> undercover
>>>>>>>>>> agent sent by Josef Stalin to infiltrate western thinking into
>> some=
>> 
>>>>>>>> kind of
>>>>>>>>>> photonegative mindmap of the economic machinery planned by the
>> russ=
>> ian
>>>>>>>>>> communists. MALC is my contribution to broaden the perspective
>> and s=
>> how
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> other important dimensions of economics.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> Mark:  When you speak of "primitive man" it reminds me of a movie
>> I j=
>> ust
>>>>>>>>> saw called The Master.  It is meant to be about "Scientology",
>> where=
>> we
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> trapped in our primitive brains due to evil forces, of something.
>> A=
>> 
>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>> good movie.  I really have no problem with Scientology although I
>> am=
>> not
>>>>>>>>> a practitioner, it is Scientism that I have a problem with.  We
>> have=
>> 
>>>>>>>> become
>>>>>>>>> so bewitched by the world of objects and their "measurement" that
>> we=
>> do
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> see that they are simply shadows being cast within our brains, and
>> w=
>> e
>>>>>>>>> forget what it is that is casting these shadows.  Of course Plato
>> sp=
>> eaks
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> this as well.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> The point of MoQ is to get out of the cave of shadows.  Forget
>> Scien=
>> ce
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> all that it professes.  All that stuff is entertaining, but is also
>>>>>>>>> addictive.  People actually think that light is a wave or a
>> particle=
>> .  Of
>>>>>>>>> course it is neither of these things, such models are
>>>>>>>>> simply descriptions of light.  Light has nothing to do with waves
>> or=
>> 
>>>>>>>>> particles, those are just patterns we create.  If I paint a
>> landscap=
>> e, I
>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> not then confuse my painting for the actual landscape.  In the
>> same w=
>> ay,
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> should not confuse light with our description of it.  Scientism is
>> a=
>> dead
>>>>>>>>> end.  It leads nowhere in terms of metaphysics.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> JA:  When John is chased by the ice floes, he's experiences the
>> dan=
>> ger
>>>>>>>>>> of Two-dimensional patterns. When the passing train makes the
>> groun=
>> d to
>>>>>>>>>> vibrate it is a power like exergy in change that creates new
>> patter=
>> ns.
>>>>>>>>>> When the rabbit is crushed by the tyre it changes its
>> Three-dimensi=
>> onal
>>>>>>>>>> pattern into a two-dimensional and it dies. Flat dog, no good.
>>>>>>>>>> When John walks through the dressing room his biological pattern
>> is=
>> 
>>>>>>>>>> causing trouble for the female social environment. His biological
>> n=
>> ose
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> misleading him and so on. He is a lousy card player, why doesn't
>> he=
>> care
>>>>>>>>>> more for it?
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> Yes, I like the two dimensional patterns for that is what objects
>> ar=
>> e.
>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>> we live in a world of self created objects, we become two
>> dimensiona=
>> l.
>>>>>>>> MoQ
>>>>>>>>> provides one way in which to escape this form of existence.  We are
>>>>>>>> allowed
>>>>>>>>> to stand up and actually look around rather than scurry around as
>>>>>>>> shadows.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> JA:  Thanks for the inspiration. Maybe you should get more from a
>> r=
>> eread
>>>>>>>>>> with this in mind.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> Thanks, I will.
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> Hope what I present makes sense.  I find much more value in a world
>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>> objects.  Like I say, Quality is a different way of looking at
>> reali=
>> ty.
>>>>>>>>> Most would call it insane.  But that is simply because it has not
>> ca=
>> ught
>>>>>>>>> on, yet...
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> I have to say, that I interpret the levels in a very different way
>> t=
>> han
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> do, as well.  Whatever works, heh?
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> 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
>>>> =20
>>>> 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
>> 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