Actually, 'escape' is a form of attachment, attachment due to fear.
On Apr 22, 2011, at 3:30 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > Ron, > > I have no desire to make this into discussion on the meaning - denotation, > connotation or interpretation - of words, but when you translated the word I > used 'unattached' for the more emotionally charged word 'escape,' the meaning > of my statement changed. I have no desire to defend the idea of 'escaping > value.' > > What was your rationale for making such a switch. > > > Marsha > > > > > On Apr 21, 2011, at 7:34 PM, X Acto wrote: > >> Marsha, >> what exactly are my assumptions? >> >> That you are a rational human being that has reasons for their beliefs? >> >> I suppose you are correct Marsha. >> >> -Ron >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: MarshaV <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Thu, April 21, 2011 3:55:08 PM >> Subject: Re: [MD] [Bulk] Re: the story of "me" >> >> >> Ron, >> >> It's a philosophical question from your heart and head. I have a different >> philosophical perspective, a different heart and head. You're looking for >> affirmation from and for your point-of-view, your personal interpretation. >> I suppose since you composed and asked the question, you need to >> answer it for yourself. Your question's assumptions make no sense to me. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 21, 2011, at 2:22 PM, X Acto wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ron, >>> >>> I reject your analysis. But thanks for the projection; it's always >>> interesting. >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> Marsha, >>> Then you are rejecting a philosophical question not a subjective analysis. >>> >>> The Question: >>>> >>>> if we are composed of value, doesent it make more >>>> sense to develop those value than to try to escape them? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 20, 2011, at 8:53 AM, X Acto wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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
