Hi Marsha, No reason to be so defensive. I am sure that you have read neti-neti, it shows in your posts. All I am saying is that it is an insufficient rational description. I can find many things on Google which would disprove your assertion of using it in MoQ. In fact there is no reason for you to read any of these posts since they can all be found someplace with Google . Google is a dangerous thing which is why we have this forum to clarify. Everything you find on there will both support and refute your position. Wiki is a favorite, and Google often seems to place it at the top of a search. Does not that seem suspicious to you in terms of net neutrality?
My objection is using neti-neti in the form of denial. If this is Dan's statement then I stand corrected in directing the post to you. But the question to you still remains. How is MOQ described by neti-neti. You are the one using it, don't deflect the question to me. If these words do not represent the ultimate reality, then add some more words to bring us along. Statements followed by explanation is all I am seeking. Certainly you do not have to participate in my education, and if using a megaphone is your method so be it or not be it, (that is the question). Regards as always, Mark On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:25 AM, MarshaV <val...@att.net> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > > > > On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:55 PM, 118 wrote: > > > [Dan previously] > > I can agree with you that when all is said and done, 'not this, not that' > > rules. > > > > [Marsh in response] > > It is none of these things, not this, not that.. > > > > [Mark carefully interrupting] > > > > Hi Marsha, > > > > > > > > I think you are being misleading by saying it is none of these things. > In > > my opinion it is all of these things as proposed by not this, not that. > In > > that way I agree with Dan. > > That was not Dan previously, but Marsha previously and I wished to > re-emphasis my statement. > > > > It is easy for one to muddy the waters when one > > brings in an Eastern philosophy that we do not have a full appreciation > of. > > I'm certainly not the only person who has investigated Eastern philosophy, > and there is such thing as a question or google search. > > > > If the intent is to harmonize MOQ with such then, not this, not that has > to > > be used in a constructive fashion. By saying it is not this, not that, > you > > are conveying a description, not denying one. > > I'm not sure of your objection. Why do you agree with my first statement > and > not my second? > > > > It is not useful to use such a statement as a conclusion, it is a > positive > > quality which has its own properties open for discussion. > > If you mean "It is none of these things" please explain why you think it > was not useful. It was a remark made to Dan. I'm sorry do not approve. > I have read 'neti-neti' explained many different ways. Maybe you have > exact set of words you'd like to recommend. Let's hear them. > > > > The goal would be to add words to describe such properties. I know it's > > difficult, but use different words so the rest of us can understand what > > you are proposing. > > I am saying these words do not represent the UltimateTruth/Quality. I > thought > Dan might understand after all his Zen sitting. And don't ask me to > explain > what is beyond words. I will only dance away... > > > Marsha > > > > > > > > ___ > > > 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 > 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
