Hi Marsha, Rorschack may work better. I do not find your posts ridiculous, please don't project. I have lots of opinions that I throw out for feedback. If you like, I can present you with questions instead, but that would be presumptive of me that you would want to answer them. Don't be afraid, I am just an avatar having fun in cyberspace, can't hurt you. I can't think of anything worse than following in my footsteps.
Static habit of thought as opposed to what? Is there a dynamic process of thought. I think so, and it is what I have been posting for a while. You seem to have an idea of what I am thinking. Please let me know, sometimes I am not always sure. By the way, I like chocolate chip. Courage, Mark On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:08 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark, > > And? You've expressed an opinion, and? I did not see a question, > so? Is there a specific point you'd like to discuss further or should > I use try to apply a Rorschack method. Maybe you think I should > go bake cookies because my posts are so ridiculous? I think it's > about the journey, so maybe you think I should follow in your > footsteps? > > Of course, I use the word 'I' all the time, it's a significant pronoun in > the language I speak, and it represents a habit of thought. > > > Marsha > > > > On Apr 21, 2011, at 1:39 AM, 118 wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> >> I am still a little confused about what is being pointed to with the >> word pattern. What is presented just doesn't make sense to me. Most >> of our days are not patterned experience, as far as I can tell. We >> pattern things by forming an image in our heads for what appears >> outside. We certainly do not do that for over 99% of our experience. >> We certainly speak in patterns, but we are not talking all the time. >> And even when talking, that is only a small part of what is happening >> right then. When one approaches each moment in a mindful manner it is >> easier to see how the mind is constantly jumping, second to second. >> Most of that is not patterned. Perhaps I don't understand patterned. >> Perhaps I am tired of reading that word. Perhaps I am an ornery old >> man. >> >> Nonduality is not some intellectual achievement. Most of our day is >> not dual, this is easy to see if one pays attention. There is no >> subject or object when one is dancing. What is the object of dancing? >> When we choose to talk about it, then it becomes dual because we must >> resort to agreed on methods. If we care to share something we pattern >> it. Otherwise we don't. This as I have suggested is the societal >> level impinging on the personal level. Naming is a tool used for >> communication, nothing else. We don't have to know that a tree is >> called a tree, unless we want to share it. >> >> Let's say that I am continually changing. The fact that I use the >> pronoun "I" means that I believe I exist. I believe you, Marsha, also >> use the word "I" sometimes. We can say that we believe certain >> things, but it becomes obvious from the rhetoric used that we really >> don't. Many who are enlightened such as some Christians or Buddhist >> refer to themselves as "this body". I think that is kind of silly if >> you ask me (yeah, I know, nobody ever does). The fact that I change >> and cannot be pinpointed does not mean that I don't exist. If that >> were true then a tornado would not exist. My daughter, who is in >> school in North Carolina, would say that's silly. "Dad, are you >> talking about that weird stuff again?" >> >> When you state that there is a fundamental unity, I think I know what >> you are pointing at. However, fundamental unity has no reference, so >> it could be everything or nothing both at the same time. We could say >> that water has fundamental unity. But such a statement is comparing >> it to something that doesn't. If everything is the same thing, then >> we could easily say that by that logic, everything is different too. >> Saying that everything has fundamental unity is good rhetoric, but is, >> in the end, a meaningless statement. >> >> People are using "Not this, not that" in ways it was never intended to >> be used. It has lost all meaning. As if "not this, not that" >> actually presents an argument of something. This is absurd, if I may >> say so (forgot to ask permission). Like: "What is it?" "Well, it IS >> not this, not that". What is that all about? IS it something or >> isn't it? If it isn't then what is all the fuss about? If it is >> something, well. by golly, then let's talk about it. I guess it >> depends on what the meaning of "is" is. >> >> Cheers as always, >> Mark >> >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:58 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hello John, >>> >>> An unpatterned experience IS possible. We do not share every experience, >>> so as you claim no such experience is possible because you've never >>> experienced it, I will continue to state that it is possible because I have >>> had such experiences. I didn't experience it as chaos, but then the >>> experiences were not more than a few minutes. I was present and felt >>> no panic. Actually I felt elated. >>> >>> I offered the wiki-quote only to validate that it is a documented >>> experience. >>> I found it named in the Nonduality book, and as silly as it seems I was very >>> relieved to see it named. What is it about naming that makes experience >>> more real? Anyway, the wiki-quote was not the experience but some kind >>> explanation. I will not even try to collaborate what Conze said. I'd >>> describe >>> it as seeing without something seen, without differentiation, without >>> concepts. >>> >>> I'm not sure where the comparison with "not this, not that" came from, but >>> for me 'not this, not that' is a reminder that below the patterns there is a >>> fundamental unity. >>> >>> In your post to Mark, you wrote: >>> >>> "One has to care to see a pattern, in order to see it. You have to >>> try. You have to use concepts such as order and symetry and repetition over >>> time, in order to call something a pattern, and once you see it that way, >>> you are attached to your interpretation." >>> >>> One does not have to heed those pattern threads. One can see without >>> the pattern (habit) recognition. >>> >>> I am not going to say anymore because there really nothing to be said. >>> BUT, such experiences are possible, even for nobody special. >>> >>> >> [Mark] >> Ahhh, there is so much to be said, and so little time. >> >> >>> >>> >>> 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 > > > > ___ > > > 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
