Hi DMB, et al - I agree. His use of "to the extent that ..." is a key qualifier - I think I've said before.
2 specifics inserted ... You said "To denigrate the static as an illusion or as a prison from which we want to escape is to misunderstand what freedom is, I think." [IG] Yes. When talking of "illusory" aspects of the static, this is largely a warning, something to be aware of and understood - that they are static patterns in the underlying dynamic reality. Quite different from saying the static is "just" an illusion - so ignore it. (The same applies to these static patterns we call "me and my free-will" - yes be aware of their illusory aspects, but no reason to deny or denigrate them as "mere" illusions.) You also said "I mean, being controlled by or clinging to static patterns is very different from mastering static patterns." [IG] Yes, understanding how static patterns work, how they arise, and how they relate to dynamic possibilities is one thing, including the warning of how their static aspects can be clinging and limiting .... is all part of what it takes to master them. These points seem like MoQ101, so like you I get frustrated that we keep re-visiting and questioning them as if they were problematic mysteries. Ian 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
