Hello Ron,

Having stated that the "Cartesian 'Me" is an illusion, and the definition of 
self is a flow of ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent inorganic, 
biological, social and intellectual static patterns of value, I would have to 
say NO, I do not stand for any-thing.  If you recognize "me" standing for 
something, I would suspect you are recognizing social  and intellectual 
patterns 
we both share: patterns that attract and patterns that repel.  If you want me 
to 
admit an "intention," it would be to become "unattached" to these patterns.  
That doesn't mean destroy them, it means to become unattached.  If this all 
sounds too lofty to be "real," I'll confess that the "Cartesian Me" pattern has 
me in it's grip far, far FAR too often. I am "human, all too human."  



Marsha  

Marsha,
Why  fight being human, refine it dont deny it. if we are composed of value, 
doesent it make more
sense to develop those value than to try to escape them?

-Ron








On Apr 18, 2011, at 11:14 PM, X Acto wrote:

> well, maybe perhaps one day you'll actually stand for something.
> 
> I think you already do
> 
> but you have yet to admit it.
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: MarshaV <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Mon, April 18, 2011 4:58:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] [Bulk] Re: the story of "me"
> 
> 
> Interesting Ron,  
> 
> I had lunch with a friend early last week, and as we were talking, 
> I was realizing that my words were not really True.  We were discussing 
> experiences in other countries.  And it made me uncomfortable to give 
> any opinion at all.  What I spoke of my experiences in Italy, would be 
> different if I explained them to someone else, or explained them on 
> different day.  They'd have been different if I were talking at a different 
> hour.  These Italian utterances were so transitory.  The talk was harmless 
> enough, so I chalked it up to being social.  But it made me squirm none 
> the less because it represents all semantic expression.  
> 
> Maybe this will help you see why bottom line is always "not this, not that."  
>   
>
> 
> 
> 
> Marsha  
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 17, 2011, at 11:43 PM, X Acto wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi Ron,
>> 
>> Are you suggesting that we add 'stories' as another synonym too, and I 
>> forgot 

>> Good.  
>> 
>> Really, are you suggesting that these are additional synonyms?  Or something 
>> else.
>> I'd like to know how you're thinking about this.  
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha  
>> 
>> Marsha,
>> I'm going after general meanings of the terms we use, I think :
>> Good
>> Choice
>> preference
>> selection
>> Value
>> And yes freedom
>> 
>> All have meaning very similar to the word Quality
>> 
>> I think our stories our biographies tell more about our values
>> than any concept of a cartesian self.
>> 
>> I venture to suppose that our stories are our static values.
>> And I believe we do have a choice in following them or not.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 17, 2011, at 9:38 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> But it sounds like you are saying you are assigning 'choice' and 'freedom' 
>>> as 
>
> 
>>> additional synonyms for Quality.  So synonyms for Quality are Value, 
>>> Experience,
>>> Morality, Choice, and Freedom.  Are there more?  Is that what you are 
>>> saying, 
>
> 
>>> that 
>>> 
>>> choice and freedom are additional synonyms?  Or are those synonyms for 
>>> static 
>
> 
>>> quality alone?  





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

Reply via email to