At 02:01 PM 8/19/2008, you wrote:
Marsha:
> I remember Arlo once writing, that people write of only who
> they want
> you to know. Not so. I don't have much filtering.
> First that
> sometimes leaves me feeling vulnerable. Second, according
> to Octavio
> Paz, men think that exposing themselves is a weakness, and
> therefore,
> women are weak. I'm still a product of this culture,
> so of course I
> doubt. I'm as f*cked up as the next America woman.
SA: Octavio can't be all right. I remember writing a thread called
Am I too Open. I've pretty much layed out everything on this forum,
except that name thing that bothers you so much, but did you ever
see "Dark Knight"? Anime, comics, as I've said before, ARE the
modern day mythologies. That movie, excuse this language - KICKED
ASS! It was one of the best movies I've ever seen.
I grant you that nothing or nobody is all anything.
I'm glad you like the movie, I'll rent it when it's available. I
liked The Girl in the Cafe.
SA previously:
> > Your recent posts do come off as if your looking for
> somebody to
> > help you calm down, if that's what you mean by
> "challenge".
Marsha:
> Is that so? I meant honestly challenge MY thinking. I
> care about
> the questions considered here. I care that I think them
> through
> myself, not just mimic. For instance, I like the idea of
> science,
> but I don't actually trust it. It's a bit of a
> dilemma. Nagarjuna's
> MMK blows my mind. It both appeals to my bone marrow and
> alienates
> me. When I'm out and about and attempting to chat with
> people, my
> talk seems false and true. I don't like feeling false.
> Even to my
> own family, there is a basic not speaking truth. Do you
> understand
> what I'm saying? I'm an alien. Luckily I play
> well by myself.
SA: I did understand you, until you said, "there is a basic not
speaking truth", yet, you "don't like feeling false". Sounds as if
you can't avoid it. I think your thinking too much or trying to
hard. Isn't the answer right in front of you "not sure that I am
representing the two truths correctly". That's sounds baseline to
me. I know you want to discuss what your trying to say, but you
can't say it all - and by saying this haven't I pretty much summed
up the endeavor. Live. Try. I'm not where you are, but I find
living to be what these thoughts are trying to help us do. Keep up
the spirit. I like the concept spirit. For one it means "how is
your spirit - how are you doing/feeling". Secondly, spirit means
"can't break that horses spirit" or "look at the spirit of that
person - so strong", spontaneity, living your routine without an
overload of outside impediment where your routine in the day is
healthy and spiritually significant. By
spiritually I mean "way of spirit", and I defined how I understand
what spirit is above. Depth of consciousness has to do with a good
spirit, especially in the spontaneity aspect as you might notice.
I charm the pants of young and old, and love them all. That's not
what I mean.
I do the best that I can.
Marsha:
> And in the forum, I am not sure that I am representing the
> two truths
> correctly. My language still sometimes sounds strange to
> me.
SA: It really doesn't sound strange at all. It's as I've said
before. I've been using my quiet woods understanding, the zazen,
and sitting by the fire to understand the moq. It's my
preconceptions in how/what the moq is. I said long ago when I
joined, learning about the moq and discussing on this forum was more
about learning the language of the moq to discuss what I knew
already. You really don't sound strange Marsha, but then again I've
been known to be strange and labeled such, not on this forum but in my life.
I miss full-moon nights around the fire. Drums beating, sparks
raising, chanting... Orion lying low in the sky.
You, my friend, are a treasure.
SA previously:
> >Isn't the quiet challenge enough at times? I mean,
> by challenge,
> >are you saying you want somebody to talk to and debate
> with. That's
> >something the moq discuss website - cites - as what can
> stir a
> >discussion - controversy, be controversial and like
> Ham, Bo, and
> >Platt you might get people talking with you all the
> time, even if
> >you don't even like the moq and discuss the moq
> (Ham) you'll have
> >people talking to you on this forum all the time.
> Ironic eh?
Marsha:
> I'm think everyone is here because of ZMM, LILA, &
> MOQ, and are
> trying to work out these ideas for themselves. That's
> good enough
> for me. Now would be a good time for some quiet.
SA: I'm not putting any words in anybody's mouth. Ham obviously
states he doesn't find the moq to meet his essentialism. Ham will
only talk with you if you don't bring up the moq. Sometimes he gets
curious, but usually it ends up being a discussion on his
thesis. Bo states he likes the first chapters in ZMM and then
thinks the rest of the moq or what people discuss about the moq
(Pirsig included) is a mix up. He doesn't like Lila and would have
rather had Lila not written. That's what he says. You know
that. I'm only repeating what they say. Scared? Anyways, my point
was be controversial if you want people to challenge your
thoughts. It's in the moq website on how to discuss in the forum. Look it up.
Bo and Ham are great. I've learned from both of them. They both
care. They have a different MOQ point-of-view from mine. That's
fine. I like diversity. They both make me think. And I do like to think.
But that biology-thing is pretty cool too.
Marsha
.
.
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
