Hi Marsha,

> Yes and no... I think it best to consider static patterns of value from two different points of view. The first would be the nature of all patterns: conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized. A second would be from a categorization point-of-view by evolutionary function - inorganic, biological, social and intellectual – into their four-level, hierarchical structure.
Why is it better to see things this way rather than what I have presented? Where have I gone wrong?  I agree with your categorisation point of view, and I agree that all patterns are impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualised however I cannot agree that they are 'conditionally co-dependent' or 'relative'.  Why is it better to say that patterns are conditionally co-dependent?
>  
> I don't have much to say about 'consciousness'. RMP has not defined it definitively within the MoQ.
>  
>  

Just so we're clear, he has talked in LC about it…

"Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because definition never exhausts it."
> And I recently watched about nine-hours of presentation on consciousness from a conference on the topic: The Consciousness Chronicles. The major players in the field no not present any consensus on the topic of consciousness, and neither do I. Where does concepts and percepts originate? I don't know...
>  
>  

I do, DQ.
> From a personal, lived perspective, in meditation I can watch bits and pieces of patterns flow through 'mind'.  
>  
> I have just begun to investigate the aggregates within Buddhism. What I am reading is very interesting and I wonder how they (the aggregates) might relate to patterns, but I have not formed any opinion yet. They are intimately related to Dependent Origination; that's all I can say.
>  
Okay.  

> > Please talk to me about something without using ideas.. To think that's possible is the absurdity.  
>  
> Exactly!!! And I can't forget it. People seem to think I am putting forward a big joke, but I'm not. I can't forget it.

Okay.  

> Okay, than we disagree. I don't know what to say about that. I certainly do get that static patterns are some concrete, reified thing. I have them as conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized process.  
>  
> Are you saying a static pattern of value is identical for every individual? How do you define static patterns of value?

While I don't claim that static patterns of value are 'identical' for every individual, they are however the same thing.  This is why I harp on about how there is no world 'out there'.  If there's no world out there, then this is immediately a very different world than a SOM would have us believe.  When there's a world 'out there', there are very distinct and different people who are completely separate from one another. This is a good idea in the world of science but it isn't how things ultimately are.  For starters, talk to any anthropologist and they will tell you that a persons values are shaped by the culture they're from.  For instance, this language that we are talking with now Marsha... Did you or I invent it? How are we ever able to communicate if people are 'separate' in the traditional sense?   There are so many values we both have, which are universal and aren't 'ours' alone.  In the MOQ, to say someone is an individual is a handy term to use for a group of unique collection of patterns from the past. There isn't however, any individual beyond these patterns…

I define static patterns of value as every thing.
> > > Reality = Quality(DQ/sq), or Reality = experience(unpatterned/patterned). I can agree that quality comes before conceptualization.
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> > And I can agree with and rank your descriptions of reality - The first is better than the second. :-)
>  
> The first I consider the MoQ's theoretical presentation, the second I consider from my lived-experience perspective. On this site it is best to keep them separate least you get accused of reinterpreting RMP.
I have a feeling that this is why you hold back with your opinions on others writing? You're scared of being accused of 'reinterpreting the MOQ'?  If so, that's rather sad.  Don't hold back in offering your actual opinion on things Marsha! It's not worth selling out who you are to a philosophical discussion board!  

If you don't agree with the MOQ on something, then just say so rather than repeat it so as to avoid getting in trouble…  

> > > > Everyone knows what quality is. The reason why we disagree is because we have each had a different life experience. People who have had a similar life experience will hold similar values.  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > And? Who is the everyone who knows?
> >  
> > Hypothetical clearly. However, are you claiming you don't? If so that's very interesting.
>  
> You seem to want to state "everybody knows" but deny the change implemented by an individual; while I have it an 'conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized process'.
Ahh I see, so that's why you say that.. I don't deny that individuals are different from one another, but there are no truly 'independent' people as you seem to imply because people don't 'implement change'.   Any change for the better is a result of DQ and not the static patterns of that person as static patterns cannot contain DQ..   As I said above - a unique individual is just a unique collection of patterns from the past.  There are many people who share many values however so the patterns aren't unique to just one individual but a particular collection of patterns is…  

-David.
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