Hi David, I'd rather post this:
Does a dog have Buddha nature? Yes, because all things have Buddha nature. No, because all things have no nature. Marsha On Apr 9, 2013, at 6:28 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > No you answered it. Thank you. > > If I may ask one more question at the risk of sounding intrusive - what is > your definition of static patterns? > > > On 09/04/2013, at 7:17 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> David, >> >> Seems to me understanding and meaningfulness are, to varying degrees, >> relative and dependent on context, intent, and habits of thought, etc. For >> example, a simple thing like introversion/extroversion may have a >> significant effect on whether it's a problem, or not, and to what degree. >> Cultural differences is another example. I certainly do not expect that my >> point-of-view will be understood and beloved by one and ALL; nor do I care. >> It hopefully may resonate with some, but because my point-of-view is >> ever-changing and always incomplete I can be tolerant. And with others we >> may never come to a thorough understanding. And of course there is that >> ever-present and underlying fact that these understandings are not >> Ultimately True. I really do not like the idea of turning maya into dogma. >> >> Have I answered your question? Or were you looking for an answer coming >> from a different context? >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 9, 2013, at 4:26 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Marsha, >>> >>> I thought so. But 'What do you mean by saying that its not a problem if we >>> cannot ALWAYS understand each other?' >>> >>> On 09/04/2013, at 5:36 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> David, >>>> >>>> Not meaning to be a smartass, but there is a big difference between a >>>> universal qualified statement and a existential qualified statement, and >>>> that would be a first step towards understanding. >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 9, 2013, at 2:29 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi David, >>>>> >>>>> Hmmm. Did you mean 'What do you mean by saying that its not a problem if >>>>> we cannot ALWAYS understand each other?' >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Marsha >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 9, 2013, at 12:28 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Marsha, >>>>>> >>>>>> "It's analogy all the way down and all the way out, and not a problem if >>>>>> we cannot always understand each other." >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you mean by saying that its not a problem if we cannot >>>>>> understand each other? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 09/04/2013, at 7:08 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Joe, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's analogy all the way down and all the way out, and not a problem if >>>>>>> we cannot always understand each other. I hope you _understand_ that I >>>>>>> use the term 'indeterminate' because "Quality is indivisible, >>>>>>> undefinable and unknowable" and my explanation had no relationship to >>>>>>> the philosophical determinacy/indeterminacy problem, in spite of the >>>>>>> noisy straw dog. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where to put sensations is interesting and sometimes a fun place to >>>>>>> play, though I don't believe it to be dependent on what is workable and >>>>>>> useful in explanation. Schopenhauer had some good thoughts on the >>>>>>> subject. I remember presenting some A.S. posts on perceiving apples. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And I certainly find it hard to believe you mind being obscure. What >>>>>>> to do with consciousness is also interesting and deserving a good >>>>>>> story. I don't believe the intellectual (static) MoQ is suppose to >>>>>>> represent the Absolute Truth: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "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." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (RMP, 'LILA', Chapter 32) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marsha >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi MarshaV and All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I sense no urgency in trying to come to grips with metaphysics. MOQ >>>>>>> tweaks >>>>>>> the logic of SOM! I am not convinced that I have a proper conception of >>>>>>> logic. An open forum seems to be the most rewarding test for logic. I >>>>>>> am >>>>>>> sorry I am so obscure. Good luck to you! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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
