Andre, The post was directed to dmb, so it's his response that might be interesting, or maybe it will be more of his evasion.
Marsha On Sep 21, 2011, at 5:10 AM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Marsha to dmb: > > You think it, therefore it's true. What James argues still means nothing to > me.I put them in the same category as God. > > What is your argument? Have you presented any argument at all? No? Are you > folding? > > Andre: > Your antics, Lucy, remind me of the following Zen story: > > Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a > university professor who came to inquire about Zen. > > Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring. > > The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. > "It is overfull. No more will go in!" > > "Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and > speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?" > > Marsha: > The interesting question is how do you lessen the attachment to static > quality to become more free. > > Andre: > It's all in the story, Lucy and perhaps you could take lesson from your > grandson's observation. > > Alternatively you could follow Pirsig's advice:" You free yourself from > static patterns by putting them to sleep. That is, you master them with such > proficiency that they become an unconscious part of your nature. You get so > used to them you completely forget them and they are gone. There in the > center of the most monotonous boredom of static ritualistic patterns the > Dynamic Quality is found" (LILA, p 393) > > Your problem Lucy, is that you do not take sq seriously. You continuously > argue they are illusions. You fight them so much that you keep them awake. > They are monsters to you, nuisances, scary apparitions because, despite what > you say, they are very, very real to you. > > You keep on confusing sq with DQ. That is the heart of your difficulty. You > reduce sq to illusions because they have no inherent existence. We all know > they do not have inherent existence but that does not mean we should treat > them as not real or meaningful or helpful. Your attack on sq has confined > itself to nihilistic drivel and the story above may teach you that there is a > large amount of ego tripping and narcissism in there as well (which you > project on others here on the MD and, I presume, the rest of the world). > > If I were you I should be very grateful to my grandson. > > And, anticipating your response: of course THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION! > > > > > > > > > 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
