Hi Marsha, I will stop thinking about it. At the same time, you consider that Emptiness is full.
Sent laboriously from an iPhone, Mark On Dec 2, 2011, at 11:39 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Dec 2, 2011, at 1:34 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> >> Sent laboriously from an iPhone, >> Mark >> >> On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:52 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Greetings Mark, >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mark: >>>>>>>> What I was trying to say about quantum mechanics is that it is a >>>>>>>> mathematical description of matter. The notion that matter is >>>>>>>> non-local arises from how the math is used. Therefore non-locality is >>>>>>>> not a result of matter actually being non-local, it is a result of the >>>>>>>> math used to describe it. The problem with physicists (imo) is that >>>>>>>> they think that the math equations actually ARE matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marsha: >>>>>>> Patterns are ever-changing, conditionally codependent, impermanent and >>>>>>> conceptually constructed, whether intellectual, social, biological or >>>>>>> inorganic. Within the quantum world, there is the measurement problem. >>>>>>> And hope for interconnectedness. >>>>>> >>>>>> [Mark] >>>>>> As you know, I have a problem with "patterns" since it seem to rigid >>>>>> for me. In my opinion, patterns arise after conceptualization. This >>>>>> would draw a line between DQ and conceptualization, which I do not >>>>>> believe is quite accurate. But, that is just me. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Marsha: >>>>> Here is my understanding of patterns. Please note, though I state >>>>> that all patterns are conceptualized, that does not mean that patterns >>>>> are conceptual (all concepts). For I do not. Patterns may very well, >>>>> at the very least, have a perceptual piece. Here it is again: >>>>> >>>>> I think it best to consider static patterns of value from two different >>>>> points of view. One would be the nature of all patterns: conditionally >>>>> co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized. >>>>> A second would be by categorization by evolutionary function - >>>>> inorganic, biological, social and intellectual – into their four-level, >>>>> hierarchical structure. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mark: >>>> Yes, I think I see what you are presenting. I would use a systems >>>> approach rather than a pattern approach to convey what I believe you >>>> are saying. A system is dynamic, a pattern seems more static to me. >>>> >>>> Personally, I approach MoQ more from the inside looking out, than the >>>> outside looking in. That is, I do not see myself as a pattern, >>>> although I can create them. We are not actually devided up into four >>>> levels, nor do we need to abide by conditionality. Again, all just my >>>> opinion. >>>> >>>> Cheers, Mark >>> >>> It is very much a system, or process, when it is understood that static >>> quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns. Patterns >>> depend upon innumerable causes and conditions (patterns), depend upon parts >>> and the collection of parts (patterns), depend upon conceptual designation >>> (patterns). !Patterns have no independent existence! Further, these >>> patterns represent "what works" depending upon on an individual's static >>> pattern of life history. >> >> Gotcha >>> >>> I know that you know that there is no inside/outside dichotomy. The >>> fundamental nature of static quality is Dynamic Quality. >> >> Well, here we get into an awareness of Reality as it presents itself to us. >> I consider a conceptual framework to be part of reality. So I would say >> that the dichotomy is real since we create it. Else wise we are stuck in a >> system not of our own doing. What we create conceptually is as real as what >> causes us to create it. It is a continuum, if you will. We cannot separate >> our musings from everything else. To do so gives us more power than I think >> we have. Our thought process is DQ in action, IMO. >> >> Indeed the split between DQ and sq is a dichotomy. As an analogy, possibly >> DQ is that from within, and sq is that from outside. I will have to think >> about this a bit to see how the rhetoric works. > > Hello Mark, > > I know you've said that you are sick of the sutras, but the Heart Sutra > explains that 'Emptiness is form, form is emptiness'. I understand the > relationship between DQ/sq to be the same. But this can be, should be, > experienced not just conceptualized. There seems to be middle degrees > between being a Buddha and being comatose or a newborn baby. It's been said > by many that it is right there in front of you, something you've always > known. And you don't need mind-altering drugs. Maybe it helps to find > encouragement from someone we think we can trust, from someone whose > explanation seems real enough to seem possible. > > But you think on it. And then stop thinking for long enough to see. > > > Marsha > 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
