Marsha, I was simply addressing the post which you addressed specifically to me. If you do not like my answers, then stop addressing me with your posts!
I could care less who you are with. You do not even exist, you are just a bunch of patterns. Why should I care what happens to a pattern? You are not with anything, that is the nature of patterns. You do not exist! So stop pretending that you are WITH Buddha, he was real, you are not. What I was asking you was: What do the patterns represent? They must be patterns of something, right? Same with an analogy. An analogy is a representation of something else, BY DEFINITION. So all could be analogies in the static world, but what are they analogies of? That is what are these analogies used to represent? You need to at least get off first base, and not hide in quotes that you obviously do not understand. If you did, you would not use them in the context you do. Your quote below has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about. Nothing at all. You are pretending that you are some kind of dumb blond, but I know that you are not. Please, stop acting in such a pitiful way, I am not going to cry for you. Get your attention in a better way. Get it, my dear? Just stop what nonsense you are spouting and it will not come to be. It is as simple as that. You are bringing into being complete nonsense. At least follow what Buddha says, rather than just talk about it. Talk is cheap, and you are no dime woman. All the best in trying to sort your metaphysics out. Mark On 2/21/12, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark, > > You're asking for the source of static patterns? Please! I don't go for > that 'first cause/primary source' stuff. I'm with the Buddha in this > regard: > > 'If this is, that comes to be; from the arising of this, that arises; if > this is not, that does not come to be; from the stopping of this, that is > stopped.' > - Buddha > > As I wrote previously, from my point-of-view your collection of questions do > not seem not to make sense. > > > Marsha > > > > On Feb 21, 2012, at 11:28 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> Yes, I can tell that you did not understand my questions since your >> answer did not address them. I will stop asking you questions. >> Regards, >> Mark >> >> On 2/20/12, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Mark, >>> >>> Sorry, but from my point-of-view your collection of questions do not seem >>> not to make sense. Conventionally real would equate to stating something >>> is >>> a static pattern, not ultimately real. Free will and determinism are >>> intellectual static patterns of value, but "To the extent that one's >>> behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without >>> choice. >>> But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, >>> one's behavior is free." (RMP, LILA: Chapter 12). >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 20, 2012, at 4:48 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Marsha, >>>> That is an interesting opinion. It does indeed lie within your MoQ as >>>> I have become accustomed to from your posts. Although I do not quite >>>> see how you tie morality into it. That word seems out of place in >>>> your paragraph below. >>>> >>>> The difference is more easily presented in terms of free-will. The >>>> use of patterns seems to deny such a thing, if I read your post >>>> correctly. Is free will a pattern, or is it DQ? Or perhaps it is a >>>> third thing altogether. The quote you present of Pirsig's is rather >>>> strange. It creates three things. DQ, sq, and the individual. Could >>>> you perhaps explain why you present this triad? What is it about the >>>> individual that separates him/her from DQ. I am currently pondering >>>> this as well. >>>> >>>> I am not sure what you mean by conventionally. Is a squirrel not real >>>> outside of convention? When a fox catches a squirrel is that within >>>> the conventional reality? What is it that forms this convention? It >>>> would seem that you are making a distinction in realities here, but I >>>> am not quite sure what that is. Could you provide me a little more >>>> depth to this? Is Quality conventional or unconventional when we are >>>> pointing towards it. What would make it unconventional or >>>> conventional in your view? >>>> >>>> Finally, in terms of your patterns. What is the source for these >>>> patterns? Do they exist outside of the need for patterns? If the >>>> source is our need for them, why do we need them? If they have no >>>> inherent existence, what does have inherent existence? If nothing has >>>> inherent existence, then patterns have as much inherent existence as >>>> anything else. In fact, the term inherent existence can be dropped >>>> completely, or a pattern can be said to have inherent existence >>>> "relative" to something else. If we use this defenition for inherent >>>> existence, we can say that patterns do have inherent existence. >>>> Otherwise you seem to leave yourself in a vacuum of sorts, and life is >>>> anything but a vacuum. >>>> >>>> Why would we gravitate and accept something that doesn't exist? How >>>> can we differentiate between "I" and "You", for it seems that this is >>>> what we do. The notion that I would be posting a response to you >>>> would not make sense in you metaphysics, and this conversation would >>>> have already been determined before we got involved due to previous >>>> patterns. With your pattern analogy, how do you get away from >>>> determinism? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> 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
