>>> [Marsha 1] >>> Disagree if you like, but that's my experience. Maybe the "appreciation" >>> happens when one is not trying to grasp either perspective. >> >>> [Marsha 2] >>> Intellectually that may be true, but is that still true from the 360-degree >>> perspective? What good is an expanded rationality if it still demonstrates >>> aggressiveness and uses character assassination to achieve its ends: same >>> old, same old. It doesn't fit. I think some have skipped moving through >>> the180-degree point, which is not an intellectual exercise. >> >> [djh] >> >> Marsha you wrote: >> >> "I am at the MD to explore RMP's Metaphysics of Quality and the MoQ's >> relationship to Buddhism, and the way they play in living my life." >> >> How are you here to 'explore' RMP's MOQ? Are you here to explore it >> intellectually or in some other way? >> >> It's bleedingly obvious that you're not here to explore anything >> intellectually. You think that talking about Dynamic Quality and >> non-grasping and enlightenment and 'ever-changing' things is 'exploring' the >> MOQ. But it isn't. To point out something else exceedingly obvious - the >> MOQ is an intellectual thing - the type of 'exploring' you want to do is not >> intellectual. >> >> You talk about not being too fixated on something - well I think you're >> fearing that in others that which you fear most in yourself. You are the >> one fixating on the 180 degree enlightenment point that Dynamic Quality is >> the source of all things and neglecting the importance of moving on from >> this fact and going back to the patterns themselves to find 360 degree >> enlightenment. What you fail to see as a result of your fixation is that >> Dynamic Quality as the source of all static quality can actually also be an >> *intellectual* insight and not just an experience of Dynamic Quality. This >> is what Paul Turner talks about in his two contexts paper. Only once you >> appreciate this intellectual fact will you be able to move on into looking >> intellectually at the patterns themselves.
> [Marsha] > Was my response incoherent? [djh] Your response intellectually lacked coherence.. We can call that incoherence sure.. Was my response incoherent? Your short response shows that you do not value an intellectual discussion about this. I wish I was wrong.. 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
