From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Sep 23 2005 - 01:38:15 BST
Hi David (Rebecca mentioned) --
Okay, I think I understand one of the problems we're having in trying to
understand each other. It's that word "patterns" again, and the confusing
web it weaves. I warned Rebecca that I would refuse to talk in pattern
language, and I guess I should have issued the same caveat to you.
Frankly, I don't know what a pattern is supposed to mean in the context of
experience, so I don't use it. A "thing" is a particular identified object
experienced, no matter how it is formed or structured by the intellect. An
object can be a ball, a stove, a molecule, a tree, a body, a star. An
object may form patterns of movement with other objects in time, in which
case we experience an "event". Things and events have no awareness
themselves; they constitute the objective experience of proprietary
(subjective) awareness.
> absence is well the capacity for patterns to absent themselves
> from our individual experience. We use our analytical cutting
> powers to discern these patterns. Is nothingness lurking in this
> cutting -- perhaps. Or even absence. We isolate a pattern
> like 'the sun' by isolating it in the pattern called sky, so you
> sort of absent the sun from the sky to differentiate the sun.
Let me attempt to translate that concept in plain English.
Objects sometimes disappear from our experience, but our intellect tells us
that they still exist (though they may be temporarily absent from our view).
We identify the sun as an object in the sky. To form a mental picture of
the sun, we intellectually isolate it from the sky in which it appears.
How does my "de-patternized" translation differ from your original
statements? What do the patterns add to the meaning?
> Yes it is possible to postulate a One prior to the many.
> And glad to see you improving your valuation of experience.[?]
I'll check out your archived reference to "realms" and get back to you
later. First, I'd like to comment on the two "DM" paragraphs of your last
note.
> Here's the thing, I think our embodied-ness does not
> reside in organs that interpret data, rather we are embodied
> and we are impacted causally by all the other patterns/things
> in the world, and when we are impacted it is either good or
> bad (valued), do we need anyone to tell us whether our
> 'experiences' are good or bad? Our attempts to understand
> this experience is where we get consciousness developing
> into what we are today.
When you say "we are embodied", I take it to mean that our self-awareness is
embodied; that is to say, subjective awareness always identifies with a
specific body or biological organism. I don't know what "impacted causally"
means. Any happening has a cause. If you are implying that things and
events in an "outside world" impact on us, I disagree. We are "impacted"
(stimulated) incrementally by the primary source (Essence), and convert this
sensory data into particular things, as described above. (Incidentally,
values can be "good" or "bad", depending on our sensibility and conditional
perspective.)
Do you see this explanation as contradictory to Pirsig's E=R principle?
> No Pirsig is happy to talk about the world and evolution
> prior to man or even life so he does not imply this.
He's implied it to me, David. If experience creates the universe, it can
not exist prior to our experiencing it. That's how I have interpreted the
MoQ ontology. Or are you going to tell me that the universe experiences
itself and appears as *causa sui*?
You still have not outlined how you would change the MoQ to your liking,
except to say:
> that there is a need to understand transcendence in the MOQ
Personally, I don't believe MoQ's author believes in transcendence, or if he
did, would not want to run the risk of his philosophy being regarded as
theological. However, I would very much like to see how you explain
transcendence, particularly as applied to a primary source.
Interesting posts. Let's see what Rebecca has to say.
Essentially yours,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 23 2005 - 01:39:32 BST