Hi Marsha, I have got used to this defensive form of reply. Usually you are seeking interaction through confrontation. There is so much interaction around you this very moment, that the emotional gratification through the intellect is secondary.
Certainly my posting provides gratification for me, but, I always try to back up my assertions. I do not say that DQ is undefinable and unknowable and we should not discuss it. The definitions we temporarily create move the subject forward. These definitions come from us knowing Quality (need anyone Tell us these things?). This forum should move towards agreement rather than egocentric posturing. If you do not want to discuss Quality, which requires definitions, I am fine with that, I will still read your posts and respond. As far as I can tell, my metaphors make sense to me, perhaps I am insane like Phaedrus, and Lila. Mark On Oct 9, 2011, at 12:11 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 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
