Andre,
On Oct 23, 2013, at 8:16 AM, Andre wrote: > Marsha to Andre: > 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. > > Andre: > It's good to see that you are finally away from this ridiculous notion that > DQ is none other than sq. > > And my observation that you still resort to tactics that I find 'slithering' > stand as well. > > The mirror simply reflects (to use the analogy you use) and you are only > kidding yourself and no-one else. > Marsha: What self? There's no one to kid, you kidder, you. And I still hold that the fundamental nature of the world is Quality, while static (value) patterns are useful projections (conventional reality). Dynamic quality and static (patterned) quality rise and fall together. From the Heart Sutra: Form is empty. Emptiness is form: Emptiness is not other than form; form is also not other than emptiness. --- I consider the MoQ's DQ/sq split merely a rhetorical device. So now, complain about that. :-) Marsha ___ On Oct 23, 2013, at 7:09 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > 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
