Hi Tim,
I'm just going to delete away all the sections where the questions are rhetorical or where there is no question at all. > > [Tim] > What was it, 'Matz'? Marsha: Motz. I don't know where the spelling came from. > what's wrong with John being a woman named Sally? Marsha: Nothing is wrong with wrong with John being a woman named Sally. I didn't say there was. > Is it all you, or is there more? Marsha: I don't know what I don't know. >> > > [Tim] > I think that RMP was not trying to obliterate the conventional, but just > to state that we can't close the door that tight! I think that you have > closed the door tight, and that you would be happier if you opened it a > crack. Marsha: I agree with this. > but, what you really think - which I did want to know (Thanks!): "John > exists as a ... [x]" - A. B: Marsha exists as a ... [x]. So, I ask: is > there only just one 'x'? I though it was DQ that was one. Is it that x > = x? or is it that x not-= x? (Or a fourth option?) Is it that there > is x1 = John, and x2 = Marsha? Marsha: Do not compute... > > [Tim] > 'have' was your word. And I don't see how it relates to my question: do > you believe that there is pattern outside of Marsha? Marsha: I don't know. >> Marsha: >> If you are asking if I believe there are patterns other than the ones >> I've >> been exposed to, the answer is yes. But to believe that they exist would >> be just another pattern. > > [Tim] > well, this was what I was looking for... but it doesn't satisfy... Do > you believe that there are patterns to which you cannot be exposed?! > I'm really happy with that question! Marsha: Believe? Sure. >>> [Tim] >>> IF you don't believe in proprietary individuals you will have to think >>> that you can attain another's perspective - or if not you, at least it >>> is not theoretically impossible for someone. >> >> Marsha: >> I don't understand this statement. > > [Tim] > thanks for your honesty. I think I have expressed myself above in a way > that might make it comprehensible: > > Do you believe that there are patterns to which you cannot be exposed?! > >> >>> [Tim] >>> Third: to be sure, the idea of an accomplished yogi or genius is not >>> fantastical to you, right? >> >> Marsha: >> There does seem to be patterns that such entities exist. They're static >> patterns of value. > > [Tim] > really? ahhh, I see, you don't believe the entities exist, but you > recognize a pattern that such entities exist. ... maybe I understand > that? Marsha: Good. --- I've agree with the Buddhist concept of anatta. That the self is a composite of aggregates: form (the body), feelings, perception, mental formations (volition, desire, emotions), and consciousness - patterns. None of these patterns independently exist. That's why I meditate; to see for myself. If I've missed any of your questions please let me know. And if you'd like to present your "one idea and question" I will surely give it some consideration? I hope additional progress has been made. 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
