Andre,

I have had plenty of opportunity to use this type of criticism to investigate 
an arising sense of "I" and all its attachment, and mostly to derail the 
observation.  It has provided valuable learning experience.  Andre, a mirror 
doesn't care about your language, nor do I.   If you really wanted an 
intellectual MD, you'd introduce intellectual topics in an open and respectful 
manner.  My understanding that the static world is like an illusion stands.  
All conceptual patterns (language) and perceptual patterns (i.e. mental images 
&etc. ) and all that they might signify are a counterfeit of the actual 
experience.  It is in this understanding that I say it is "like" an illusion.  
You might prefer the term analogue or ghost, but this does not change that 
there is always a difference between the pattern and the dynamic, unpatterned 
experience.   


Marsha


On Oct 22, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote:

Andre:
...  Now, in a slithering-in-snot attempt you are trying to slither your way 
out of it by placing the problem of terms in my hands.

Great EEL!!! You are still masturbating and slithering in a bucket full of big 
juicy SNOT of your own making satisfying your own narcissistic egotistical 
tendencies and needs.

Slither your way out of this one. Your biological patterns of value (I assume) 
are fine, socially you are way down the scale and intellectually your patterns 
are nowhere in sight.

When, oh when, are you going to leave the intellectual static patterns of value 
called the MoQ because you are proving, again and again that you have nothing 
to find nor anything to contribute here.

All hypothetically speaking of course.


 
 


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

Reply via email to