djh,
On Aug 16, 2013, at 9:09 AM, David Harding wrote:
>>>>>>> [djh]
>>>>>>> Furthermore it doesn't change the fact that Marsha can see the value of
>>>>>>> Dynamic Quality but not static quality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Marsha]
>>>>>> It is because I have directly experienced the unpatterned, that I can
>>>>>> appreciate the patterned, which includes Intellectual patterns.
>>>>>
>>>>> [djh]
>>>>> I disagree. I think that appreciating the unpatterned does not
>>>>> automatically mean that you appreciate the patterned.
>>>>
>>>> [Marsha 1]
>>>> Disagree if you like, but that's my experience. Maybe the "appreciation"
>>>> happens when one is not trying to grasp either perspective.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> These are two totally *different* types of quality.
>>>>
>>>> [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..
You didn't like my response. Is the problem that I don't accept YOUR
assertions as truth?
assertion (noun):
a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: _a
mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion._
I bet, David, if I had responded "You're right!" That short little statement
would have been joyously accepted as coherent.
___
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
