>>>>>>>> [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.. > > [Marsha] > 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.
[djh] No you're right, I didn't see value in your response and so I naturally disagreed with it. And no, the problem isn't that you don't accept *MY* assertions as truth. If someone disagrees with you on an intellectual forum then is this really that surprising? What disagreement means is that folks are following the point of this place - to engage in an intellectual discussion. Your words show you are not interested in this. That's fine. But why join a philosophical discussion forum and then be surprised when someone disagrees with you? I have two simple questions… You say.. "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." Are you open to discussing this intellectually? If so, doesn't honest intellectual discussion involve agreement and disagreement? 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
