Hi Mark,
I think I'll skip the Rorschack nonsense, but I would love to have you explain the original meaning of neti-neti (not this, not that), because your last sentence seemed mostly sputtering. I'd really like to know how you would explain it based on its proper meaning. Marsha On Apr 21, 2011, at 4:39 PM, 118 wrote: > 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 >>> >>> ___ 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
