>> [djh] >> Right - here's dmb's whole Marsha confuses SOM with Intellect rearing its >> ugly head. I'm not talking about SOM absolutes. > > [Marsha] > Good. Drop the the reference to absolutes and everything else still stands: > Sometimes a hypothetical yes, sometimes hypothetical no, sometimes a less > certain maybe or maybe not, and sometimes: I clearly don't know. Sometimes > you might offer food for thought; that would be welcomed. > > Using the term 'absolute' was just a conventional defense mechanism used as a > defense against the posters that think they have a right to claim themselves > right and me wrong. Right OR wrong??? Could such a claim be more absolute?
[djh] I've asked you to do this in the past and you agreed but you still refused to continue.. I'll try again - Imagine for a moment Marsha - that Right or Wrong aren't absolute. That we accept that the fundamental nature of static quality is Dynamic Quality. And from this acceptance the static quality words - Right and Wrong - are also from the non-absolute undefinable Dynamic Quality. Because if you do imagine this - this understanding of Right and Wrong is actually correct and right and wrong as absolutes is just imaginary and a result of bad SOM thinking. >> [djh] >> One which is built *FROM* the [context 1] assumption that all intellectual >> quality comes from Dynamic Quality. > [Marsha] > I agree that the fundamental nature of static quality is Dynamic Quality; > I've accepted this; I've never stated otherwise. [djh] I agree that you have experienced the insight that the fundamental nature of static quality is Dynamic Quality but I don't think you've applied this insight fully to your understanding of static quality. If you did - you'd no longer see a need to avoid the words 'right' or 'wrong' as you'd understand that thinking these words were absolute was misguided and that to live a good life and return to the static patterns to experience 360 degrees enlightenment 'right' and 'wrong' are again 'right' and 'wrong' just as mountains are once again mountains and trees are once again trees but you now have the understanding that these things are from the undefined source of all things and not fixed absolutes. Such an understanding cannot be captured in words by changing the meaning of things from static to ever-changing. But only through experience itself. Again - this is how the master can talk with the beginner - only because they both speak the same language. While one has a far more profound understanding - this understanding cannot be transferred through words because words to both of them have the same definition. > [Marsha] > It's ALL analogy, Baby, as I have acknowledged many times. The name is not > the experience; I've got that. >From the perspective of context one yes - it is all an analogy. However once >we accept this we can further discuss the existence of static patterns which >are by definition *not* Dynamic Quality. This is the importance of the >context 2 assumption that things exist before we experience them that you fail >to appreciate. I don't know how loud I need to shout it Marsha - there is >another perspective which you are completely missing because you always seem >to be focused on this insight that Dynamic Quality is the source of all >things. Quite literally you seem to be so dazzled by the light of DQ that you >never seem to want to let it go and move back with this insight that it is the >source of all things back to 360 degrees enlightenment and back towards the >patterns themselves.. >> [Marsha] >> You fail to see that your words are destroying Dynamic Quality, for you fail >> to see that Dynamic Quality isn't anything. > [dmb] > There's nothing being destroyed. [djh] Again - this is a context 1 insight. But if you look at the patterns you'll see value in the context 2 claim that things exist before we experience them. For without this assumption you can never go back to the patterns and experience mountains once again as mountains.. >> [djh] >> No, you don't. Dynamic Quality isn't unpatterened value. Chaos is also >> unpatterened. > > I don't consider the unpatterned to equate to chaos. Dynamic Quality is that > which cannot be divided, cannot be defined and cannot be known - unpatterned > - undifferentiated - not this, not that. [djh] Okay good. So you see Dynamic Quality. > [Marsha] > I read Buddhist texts and tomes, not Zen quotes. They often use the term > non-dualistic. And saying "unpatterned" is no different than saying > "indivisible, undefinable & unknowable" or saying 'not this, not that' or > saying "not patterned". [djh] Okay, that's good. You see it. Now I just think you need to take this insight back to the patterns themselves without holding onto bad ideas such as right and wrong are absolute.. 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
