Greetings Mark,
Last July you wrote:
"I propose that there is a method in writing which is based on
Dynamic Quality. In fact there are many methods being used
today with such a basis. Train of thought, or automatic writing
is one of those. Often I have to read my posts after I have written
them to see what I said. In this way writing is more like talking
in the present tense, in the moment."
Well, aren't you having fun... I find what you write interesting but
not in-touch with my experience. Maybe your self-dialectics is a form
of self-gratification. It is often gibberish to me, and I won't defend
myself against your total misinterpretation of my understanding
and/or perspective.
Marsha
On Oct 9, 2011, at 1:23 AM, 118 wrote:
> Hi Ham, Marsha,
>
> First of all, thank you Ham, you are more eloquent than I.
>
> Belief, which some call faith, lies in all those things that we do not
> try to divide up into static concepts and then question. Most of our
> daily lives consist of such faith. Only a very little becomes that
> voice in our heads. Value is derived from a place apart from that
> attentive part of our brains which seems to dominate our present
> endeavors (a place in the heart if you wish). We then say "I like
> that" if we are conversing with someone. Most of the time we do not
> think much about it. I would go as far as to say that your Value not
> only underlies belief, it is belief. There is no need to separate the
> two since that may cause confusion.
>
> The way in which Marsha uses static/dynamic is indeed prone to
> confusion. How about this analogy. The great ocean is deep. On its
> surface, there are waves which appear and then disappear. Our life
> here is brief, just another wave, but what is causing our waves lasts
> forever and is an integral part of us. So in this case, the dynamic
> represents potential (which is similar to your Essence), and our
> existence is the representation of such potential (your negation).
> With and understanding of Quality one can make inroads into a more
> meaningful existence. In fact, it can change one's whole daily
> behavior and attitude (gumption if you will). Does your belief in
> your metaphysics impact every moment of your daily life?
>
> Or, how about this, a book is static, the story it tells is dynamic.
> There is a relationship between the static and the dynamic, and both
> interact like the Yin and the Yang. Quality is the Circle which
> encompasses, Value is the interface between the static and the
> dynamic. (don't know if this works quite right, but I will leave it
> in for discussion). And let's not forget the soul, which is the white
> paper upon which the words of the book are written. Life plays on
> one's soul like music fills silence.
>
> Yes, personal value is relative to the person. However, what is
> creating that value, exists beyond the person. You have a formula of
> double negation, I simply call it Quality.
>
> Marsha,
> Dialectics. When Buddha stated there is no self, he is trying to move
> you away from your current belief, not saying that such a static
> concept is the way it is. This is the power of dialectics, finding
> the middle way.
>
> You have hung on to this ever-changing concept of Quality for some
> time now, I am waiting for the change in your belief since you claim
> to be ever-changing. The reason that you think things are changing is
> that you are stuck on static quality. You jump from one static thing
> to another and call that change. Based on where you are, I can say
> that Change does not exist in Quality. I would suggest that you
> consider the term "Ever-there" for a short break in your habits.
>
> Quality can not change, since there is no time for it to do so. That
> is, it exists outside of time. I will use the following example: All
> that you can experience is the ever-now. Even if you are having
> memories or planning for the future, that is done in the present.
> Such experience, which is Reality, happens in that timeless place, in
> the moment, not anywhere else, it can't. In the timeless moment,
> there is no change. The change you imagine is due to clinging to
> static qualities. Some things you seem to cling to more than others,
> those are the dangerous ones.
>
> To use time in the analogy, between every moment there is nothing. So,
> where are we between moments? How is it that you feel continuity in
> this existence? The Buddhists would say that you are being
> reincarnated at every moment. Thus your existence is preserved. Do
> you think this is possible, such reincarnation? Else-wise, how do you
> explain your seemingly continuous feeling of existence?
>
> Know Thyself, otherwise translated at "that thou art". I am not sure
> if you have read the book "The Perennial Philosophy" by a guy named
> Aldus Huxley. If not, give it a read, he can explain this better than
> I. What Socrates was stating is exactly the same thing that Buddha
> was stating. Hermes stated it long before either of them. Buddha's
> tact was to try to destroy the ego. Such ego is: believing we are our
> thoughts. Buddha did not try to destroy all the other things we are.
> This "No-Self" is directed at that voice in our heads to tame it.
> Once that is understood, one can still have existence of self, nothing
> changes there. Living in a world of no-self is like living in a world
> full of robots.
>
> The use of "No-Self" as a technique for awakening was fully developed
> in around 200 AD by Nagarjuna, as you know. This was not the only
> arrow in Buddha's trigger. His method for teaching changed depending
> on his student. But the technique was the same, and was one of
> dialectics. He would listen, and then present alternatives to counter
> act "false" beliefs. Socrates was said to have asked continual
> questions, with the same intent. That is, to educate towards meaning.
>
> Both of these people were just like you and me. They wanted to
> educate what they saw. The fact that such teachings have lasted a
> while emphasizes the kernel of a perennial form of thought. That is,
> a thought that has its roots way beneath the intellect (something that
> I call "deeper"), what some call the mythical. Our thoughts do not
> just arrive superficially when we are trying to communicate them
> within the social level. Our thoughts are much more expansive than
> the words which we put to them and are closer to emotions in nature
> (one point for Joe). On his deathbed, Buddha was said to have
> encouraged his followers to be free from words, for that is an easy
> way to be free and move towards Nirvana. Of course MoQ states the
> same thing as an underlying theme (static quality).
>
> So next time you present your Ever-Changing Theory, think about it,
> and move past it.
>
> All in my humble opinion, of course.
>
> Cheers,
> 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
