Ron, It's 'to ignore' is to be controlled. I do not exist in an _either/or_ world. It is not either static quality OR Dynamic Quality; not for me. It is too often suggested that I am making such an extreme choice, but I am NOT!
I'll be away until Wednesday. Be well. Marsha On Nov 4, 2012, at 1:10 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ron, > > Ignored? Of course you are correct! > > "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." > (LILA, Chapter 12) > > > Marsha > > > On Nov 3, 2012, at 11:45 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Marsha, >> Some opinions are better than others. >> >> an insight best not ignored. >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: MarshaV <[email protected]> >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, November 2, 2012 11:21 AM >> Subject: Re: [MD] belief >> >> >> X Acto, >> >> Show me your official MoQ decoder ring. Don't have one? Well, then we have >> you, your experience and your opinion. Not very insightful. And who cares >> what some feckless bulldog barks, when RMP states he doesn't even like dogs? >> Not me. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> On Nov 2, 2012, at 10:50 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Marsha said: >>> >>> dmb >>> >>> It's not how you understand or validate what I think, but it's whether you >>> understand what RMP writes: >>> >>> " ... Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act >>> since it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher >>> mystic one. The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries >>> to control and devour philosophy is wrong with metaphysics when it tries to >>> devour the world intellectually. It attempts to capture the Dynamic within >>> a static pattern. But it never does. You never get it right. >>> So why try? It's like trying to construct a perfect unassailable chess >>> game. No matter how smart you are you're never going to play a game that is >>> 'right' for all people at all times, everywhere. Answers to ten questions >>> led to a hundred more and answers to those led to a thousand more. Not only >>> would he never get it right; the longer he worked on it the wronger it >>> would probably get. . . . ". (LILA) >>> >>> >>> Ron: >>> Thats the point, you don't really understand what RMP writes. Especially if >>> you consider that quote >>> as a validation to your assertions. One can't use a quote from a narrative >>> story as though it were to be >>> taken as a true-ism, applicable as a clear statement concerning any >>> context. The story evolves along >>> with the characters thus what is stated also evolves to a conclusion. It's >>> like sniping out one line of >>> a recipe to use to bake a pie. >>> >>> What your 2 cups of diced apples says above is that to strive to "get it >>> right" is useless, a chasing >>> of rainbows. So why try? RMP asks. I think you'll find his answer runs >>> contrary to your assertion. >>> >>> .. >> 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 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
