Hi Mark,? ? If you have investigated and believe this, what are you holding on to? A right pattern? A wrong pattern? Where's the quality now? Now. Now. Now.? ? I want you here in this forum. I don't know where I might agree with you, or if, but I want you here. I think you might give some of these delicious and loveable smart-asses a run for their money. You have things to be considered. Sure, pissing in a tea cup gets attention. But is it a ?quality? experience?? ? Geez Mark, wake up.? ? Marsha?
Hi Marsha, This is a great question. That's the feeling i have about it. And the answer i've considered many times may be described in traditional Western philosophy as, 'severe nominalism.' That's a phrase i've made up which i think connects with those who teach me in the formal setting. If i live this and not simply state it, then i find the higher the patterns are in the moq evolution, the more nominal they are, to the point where leading quantum ideas support severe nominalism themselves. Social patterns are more comforting and more easy to attach to; biological patterns are most comforting; and if all life died we feel a little sick to think that matter would be left to sentinel what's left. But these nominal intellectual patterns were used by the Buddha to not only dismantle themselves, but to dismantle everything. You're asking were does that leave us? That's kinda the way i see it. The moq states that we should value the most nominal patterns, and that makes me feel uneasy. How do you feel about this? squonk P.S. I may be on the verge of being cast out of the temple, again, Marsha. If so, i shall email you personally and thank you for your support, if you are indeed supporting me? 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
