> Marsha: > To put it another way, this is your thought. It's not a fearsome thought, > but just your thought, your projection. It's a thought that arose, and then > it ceased; there's nothing in it. It is a condition of your mind, not my > psychological problem. > > Thoughts arise, thoughts cease; there is nothing in them, nothing in any > thought. It is just movement of the mind. One doesn't need to make it > personal by grasping it, attaching to it, believing it.
A thought by its nature is static quality. Static quality is nothing but the attachment of a fixed static thing. Zen denies the importance of this static quality - the small self - and calls it an illusion. Calling a thought nothing but a 'condition of your mind' and continually refusing to engage in any sort of dialectical discussion shows that you don't want to be trapped by intellectual patterns like Zen. That's fine. But can you not see how this is against the MOQ which differs from Zen in that the still values static patterns and the trail of evolution they create? > Marsha again: > This is there for you to see, if you will only look. If a metaphysics is a > theory about reality, you might want to take a look. As both the Buddha and > RMP say, see for yourself. Or do you suppose namedropping 'Heidegger' in a > sentence makes you a philosopher? A metaphysics is a static quality thing which describes that which cannot ever be desribed. "Since a metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical definition and since Quality is essentially outside definition, this means that a 'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity." If we are to ever discuss metaphysics we have to 'pretend' that these static qualities existed before we ever encountered them. This was the whole point of Paul Turners two contexts. In the second context static quality exists before we encounter it. In context one (which is exclusively what you're interested in) static quality does not exist before we encounter it. Dmb is naturally trying to talk to you from context two because in order to have an intellectual discussion we must assume that static quality exists before we encounter it - you're clearly refusing to make this assumption - can you not see how this can be contrued by dmb as being 'anti-intellectual'? 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
