On Sep 30, 2013, at 4:25 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:
> Marsha to Andre:
> I have applied it to static (conventional) quality. Do you think concepts, or
> patterns, are independent?
Marsha:
No, this was part of a discussion between dmb and myself. It was not a
discourse between the two of us. Unless you are a dmb avatar? Can't you keep
you baloney straight?
> On Sep 22, 2013, at 3:06 PM, MarshaV wrote:
>
>> dmb:
>> The line about static patterns being dependent rather than independent is a
>> paraphrasing of a perfectly good Buddhist idea but you have misapplied it to
>> concepts rather than reality.
>
> I have applied it to static (conventional) quality. Do you think concepts,
> or patterns, are independent?
>
> -------------
To continue...
> Andre:
> This doesn't really address your statement nor does it address my questions
> about that statement. But, predictably you give me half of a one-liner
> immediately followed up with a question.
Marsha:
See above.
> To say:
>
> 'Hmmm, regardless of half empty/half full, static value is empty of inherent
> existence and cannot be found.' you are setting up a few confusing
> propositions.
Marsha:
I wrote this to Ham. and it wasn't confusing to me. I didn't state that static
value didn't exist, only that it's empty of inherent existence and cannot be
found. Static value conditionally exists. As Buddha said: 'If this is, that
comes to be; from the arising of this, that arises; if this is not, that does
not come to be; from the stopping of this, that is stopped'. You asked me how
I figured it out. I answered: meditation? Do you have a more specific
question?
> The first is the 'either/or' proposition (which you totally reject in other
> people's posts).
What either/or proposition? I was asked dmb a question? He could have
answered "No, because... " I didn't demand a yes or no answer?
> Yet, you've set it up. The second one is the confusion of two different modes
> of enquiry you apply simultaneously as in 'static value is empty of inherent
> existence and cannot be found'. To use Wilber's terminology you are doing an
> 'eye of contemplation' enquiry and follow it up with a SOM ('eye of the
> flesh') interpretation.
I could care less what Wilber says.
> Dmb states it much more eloquently than I do: 'In the MOQ, static patterns
> are never supposed to be primary realities. Subjects and objects are already
> reduced in rank and otherwise portrayed as secondary concepts. Static
> patterns are just concepts and nobody ever thought that concepts are primary
> or independent realities. This is the main problem with SOM, of course.'
Marsha:
I asked the question based on his statement "but you have misapplied it to
concepts rather than reality. " I was asking dmb for clarification.
> This is what I wanted to tease out with you. You still, to use dmb's
> argument:'...confuse the disease with the cure and ends up telling us that
> "static value is empty of inherent existence and cannot be found". Thus she
> has used the MOQ's critique of SOM's realism to undermine the MOQ itself.
> Somehow, she thinks the static patterns or the MOQ are equivalent to SOM's
> conventional reality such that they can both be whipped with the same stick.
> She cannot distinguish Pirsig's solution from the problem it's meant to
> solve. She is, in effect, using Pirsig's critique against Pirsig.'
Marsha:
I am not going to confuse dmb's analogies with RMP's writings. Nor am I going
to defend myself against nonsense misrepresentations (This goes for you too
x-man.) I merely asked dmb a question for clarification. And what I wrote
to Ham has nothing to do with a disease or cure. If it does for you, that's
your problem, not mine.
> In other words, what is still applied here is the SOM/SOL (or some
> equivalent) as intellect. This you fail to see or recognize. By not seeing
> this your statement is rendered totally meaningless. It seems to me that what
> you have done is use a meditative enquiry and presented a SOM/SOL
> interpretation of that enquiry.
Please take off the mouse ears and leave fantasyland.
Marsha
___
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
