>ROB REPLIES TO THE 5 QUESTIONS.
>
>It would be awkward to answer the questions specifically. I can tell you
how I
>have resolved them
>
>Short answer:
>
>Reality is made of patterns. These patterns while being conditional, also
change
>the conditions. Reality is also made of a finite number of entities which
are
>sensitive to the infinite patterns.
Glove:
Rob, when you say patterns, what exactly do you mean? are you using it as
patterns in themselves or are they patterns of value? If they are patterns
in themselves, then aren't we back at Aristotlean philosophy? If the
patterns are conditional, on what are they conditional? Pirsig say they are
patterns of value, conditional on value. If you are saying the same thing, I
agree with you.
Is reality made up of a finite number of entities? That's not something I
would know. There is a place I could take you (in the summer of course)
where you could hear no end to the sounds of insects at night, listen as you
might. You could take a flashlight and shine it into the dark sky and see
all the swarms of insects flying, illuminated in the light beam, and yet not
feel a single one on your body. Why is that? It amazes me to no end, let me
tell you. Where was I now...oh yes, finite number of entities....I could
neither agree nor disagree with that. But I would disagree that those
entities, either finite or infinite, whichever the case may be, can be
sensitive to an infinite number of patterns. Infinity boggles us. Perhaps
its better to say there are an infinite number of entities who are sensitive
to finite patterns of value, rather than the other way around, I dont know.
Do you?
>
>
>Long answer:
>
>I observe a reality made of two things: patterns and sensitivity to the
patterns.
Glove: By calling them patterns of value you incorporate the best of both
worlds.
>Rob:
>
>When I look out at the window and see a car driving down the street, it is
>meaningless for me to think whether it is primarily dynamic or static.
Using the
>different definitions it really could be either. What is important is that
there
>is the pattern of car and it takes a "me" to be aware of it. The number of
"me"s
>in this world is finite, but the patterns are infinite. "Car"ness is
unlimited.
Glove:
>
>Change comes when two patterns interact or meet.
>
>Take planteary orbits. Did dyanmic quality overcome inertia and gravity to
cause
>planetary oribits. That is another strange way of saying it. Why not say
gravity
>is a pattern, inertia is a pattern, and orbits are a pattern?
>
>Patterns arise when certain conditions are in place. We meet a person of a
>certain gender who "matches" the requirements of our hormones and so
forth -- we
>experience attraction. There is not an indendent "force" to the patterns
called
>dynamic quality. There are just patterns mixing in unique ways that make
reality
>seem dynamic. The patterns while being conditional ALSO change the
conditions.
>
>That is why we can never be certain. We might think the patterns we are
>experiencing are constant, but there can always be something new around the
>corner. You can't contain reality.
>
>I should probably get into the "me" aspect of reality. This is definately
a
>different aspect of reality to the patterns. "I" never really experience
"you"
>directly. "I" only infer the existence of "you" through your influence on
the
>patterns I experience. If we were to meet and I shook your hand, I would
assume
>that there is a "you" at work inside your body. That just makes the most
sense.
>We are both some sort of "spiritual" entities, existing outside the
patterns of
>reality, somehow sensitive to them.
>
>The terms dynamic and static are relevant to me when discussing the finite
>entities of sensititivity. These terms are not absolute but relative. A
dynamic
>"mind" is in direct contact to the patterns whereas a static mind is not in
>reality or in the present. It is judegementally interpretting reality by
clinging
>to patterns of the past (eg. a woman's place is always in the home.) or it
is
>judgementally interpreting reality by clinging to worries about the future
(what
>if I ask this girl out and she says "no". -- when it really doesn't
matter?)
>
> MOQ:
> Quality
> / \
> / \
>Dynamic Static Levels
>
> Rob's view:
> Reality
> / \
> / \
> Quality Sentivity to Quality
> / \
> Dynamic Static
>
>This re-interpretation makes a lot of sense to me. I could go into it much
>deeper, but I wanted to get a taste of what you think.
>
>
>
>MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:54 BST