Hello Mark, This is all expresses your opinion which is yours to keep, or change with your claim to being dynamic. If find nothing in your post 3-pager but ramblings. As I stated in a later post: My metaphysical view is Reality = Value(unpatterned experience/patterned experience). If you want to debate my perspective, that is the point-of-view to debate. If you would like to debate a particular pattern, try to spell it out clearly and I will try to take it seriously.
Marsha On Oct 9, 2011, at 2:07 PM, 118 wrote: > 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 ___ 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
