Ooops, I don't want to forget the 10 seconds of stable falling before I pulled
my ripcord. That was dynamic. Time has never been the same since then... Or
feeling the impact on my bone the following Spring as my ankle broke when I
landed in a cow-field.
On Aug 14, 2011, at 3:58 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> I had not considered that you were trying to change my mind. I did think our
> understanding was too far apart for discussion, but now in this post I do
> find some things to clear up.
> I do not confine words to the intellectual level. RMP has stated that static
> quality represents all that can be conceptualized. All patterns seem to have
> a relationship with consciousness, and are conceptualized using words. On
> the intellectual level concepts just are abstracted and reified to a greater
> degree with an effort made to strip out all subjective bias. But all
> patterns are conditionally co-dependent with consciousness as they are
> conceptually constructed. There are two ways of considering static quality;
> first by what is common to all patterns; second by how patterns are
> individually categorized into one of the levels based on function. I do,
> though, not confine patterns to words alone. That's how interpret it.
>
> I, too, have been on the edge of the Grand Canyon and felt my myself
> "inspired", and you are correct there was nothing intellectual about it. It
> was a very dynamic experience, but once identified as "inspired" it became to
> some degree static: double rainbow, Maine night sky with falling stars,
> sunlight on L.I.Sound, the bat the cats killed Tuesday night, tonight's full
> moon, ants, etc., etc., etc. - Maybe you're thinking of mindfulness where
> there are identified patterns, but no words; all the internal chatter has
> ended. That's very dynamic, but, for me, DQ is still indivisible,
> undefinable and unknowable - undifferentiated, indeterminate, unpatterned.
>
> I do always find your point-of-view unique and interesting. I appreciate
> that.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2011, at 9:20 PM, 118 wrote:
>
>> Hi Marsha,
>> I am not trying to change your mind, just present mine. When I stand at the
>> edge of the Grand Canyon, I know I feel inspired. There is nothing
>> intellectual about it, but I do Know it. Much of my daily life is that way,
>> I have a sense of knowing, then I put it to Words (intellectual knowing) not
>> the other way around. I know DQ when I am in it, there is no point in
>> shoving it up to the intellect unless I want to share it.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2011, at 9:39 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hello Mark,
>>>
>>> I'm sticking with DQ as indivisible, undefinable and unknowable.
>>> Experienced, but unknowable. DQ is without differentiation, so no-thing to
>>> know and no one to know it. Static quality (patterns) are knowable.
>>>
>>> Alan Watts was cool.
>>>
>>> The rest of your comments don't resonate with me, but as always I find your
>>> point-of-view interesting.
>>>
>>>
>>> Marsha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 13, 2011, at 11:16 AM, 118 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Marsha,
>>>> I don't quite understand your first paragraph, so I will reply with
>>>> thoughts on the second. In my opinion, those adjectives with which
>>>> you define DQ are all related to sq. DQ is known by your entire
>>>> being, that is: the body/brain, and, the mind or soul or Atman or
>>>> spirit (everything that is not physical, which is much more
>>>> encompassing than the physical). You are referring to the "knowing"
>>>> that is done for the purposes of communication within the Social
>>>> Level. Surely there are many things that you experience that cannot
>>>> be put into words. Possibly most of your present experience.
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion, Goodness starts at zero and grows to infinity. There
>>>> is no Badness per se in this type of analysis. We can also assign a
>>>> midpoint in Quality, one side being positive and one side being
>>>> negative, it all amounts to the same thing. This midpoint is useful
>>>> for communication since it is easier to say Bad than "less good". I
>>>> agree that this continuum is important to develop a language around
>>>> perhaps with firmer meaning. If we assume that everything is Quality,
>>>> then our whole perspective on life changes, we simply endeavor for
>>>> higher Quality rather than trying to avoid a negative apparition.
>>>>
>>>> It's All Good,
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 12:43 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am removing the 'Thinking:' from the subject line because it referenced
>>>>> a previous line of thought and my changing a word in the definition of sq
>>>>> from 'interonnected' to 'conditionally co-dependent'. It did not
>>>>> signify a relationship between 'thinking' and my definitions of either DQ
>>>>> or sq.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sticking with DQ being indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. DQ
>>>>> is without differentiation, so by what can it possibly be known? What
>>>>> can be known is static quality (patterns) whether inside or outside of
>>>>> "intellect".
>>>>>
>>>>> From one point-of-view static patterns are all Goodness, from another
>>>>> they are a mixed bag. Either way I wouldn't want to be without them,
>>>>> though I think humanity could be helped by having them better understood.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --------- snipped ---------
>>>>>
>
> 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
