> [djh to Marsha] > 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.. > > [Arlo] > First, as I said to DMB, you're never gonna kick that football, David. Never. > Second, until you understand that Marsha's mistake is rooted in > "SOM=intellect", you're never going to understand why your 'context analysis' > of her is wrong. Its not that she 'values DQ' (whatever that means), its her > ongoing confusion of intellect-reificiation-SOM.
[djh] Goodness Arlo, I've said multiple times even directly to you that Marsha makes the SOM=intellect mistake. My very last post to you said exactly this… "And dmb's right when he points out that Marsha appears to have misread ZMM and its riling against SOM as riling against intellect and thus cannot distinguish between the cure or the disease.." You always talk to me as if we have some kind of huge disagreement - when I think our view of the MOQ is actually quite similar. It's strange, it's like you're not reading what I say or something.. Anyway here's where we differ... The question isn't *if* Marsha confuses SOM with intellect but *WHY*. People only do what they do because of what they value.. *WHY* does Marsha confuse SOM with the cure? That is the "root" of the issue. Being that I value the MOQ - I think that values are at the "root" of everything. In this way - if you look at what Marsha values - it seems clear that Marsha values Dynamic Quality so much it is blinding her to the difference between it and static quality. In other words Marsha appears so enamoured with the insight that DQ is the source of all things she is refusing to make an intellectual pattern out of this insight which would result in her being able to move into context 2 of the MOQ. For instance - we both know that in order think that static quality exists we have to make the intellectual (context 2) assumption that things exist before we experience them. "Within context (2), within the static mythos, the world does exist outside of the human imagination, inorganic and biological patterns predate the existence of humans, gravitation existed before Newton and evolution before Darwin. " But so far Marsha refuses to see the importance of this *vitally important aspect to appreciating static quality* thanks to her SOM/intellect confusion that it is only useful scientifically… "[djh] Can you ever see the value of thinking about static quality and making the assumption that things exist before we think about them? [Marsha] There might be good reasons in science to pretend [make an assumption]." But why the confusion? What is stopping Marsha from seeing the difference and the value of static quality? The answer is what she values… Marsha will often talk of the importance of DQ values such as 'non-grasping' and the insight that it is the source of all things (to give but two very recent examples).. " I think some have skipped moving through the 180-degree point, which is not an intellectual exercise." "Disagree if you like, but that's my experience. Maybe the "appreciation" happens when one is not trying to grasp either perspective." Can't you see the values in her words? Marsha is stuck at the insight that DQ is the source of all things because she is failing to appreciate that it can also be an *intellectual* insight not just a Mystical one. This failure is a result of excessively valuing the Dynamic over the static.. In her own words Marsha is not here to talk about the MOQ intellectually but to 'explore' the MOQ. Similar to how one might 'explore' Zazen, not through rigorous intellectual study but through 'experience'… "I am telling you it has everything to do with experience. I have mentioned this many times, yet you seem to want to cling to your own speculations. According to the MoQ, experience is the source of all patterns. " Unless you can show Marsha this is her mistake, she won't be interested and nothing will change. Because it's clear that pointing out the intellectual mistake of SOM=Intellect to her is going to get you nowhere until you show her the *root mistake* of over valuing DQ and thus not appreciating the actual difference between DQ and sq… "I would say your understanding of my understanding is wrong. My understanding has nothing to do with "SOM=Intellect", nothing at all. I am telling you it has everything to do with experience." 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
