Andre,
The entire essay was too long to post. The particular paragraph that was posted was a quote, by Emerson, from the Intellect Essay, which mentions "spontaneous" that as you can see reflects the topic in the subject line. I've enjoyed reading Emerson, I enjoyed this essay, but perhaps you would have chosen a different paragraph, a different topic, or maybe a different essay or different author. Such is life! Marsha > On Nov 30, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > > Marsha asked Ron: > I posted the youtube presentation of the entire (read aloud) essay. You may > check my original post and I will post it again so you might be a good > listener. So what is your complaint? > > Andre: > The part you did NOT bother to quote Marsha. And you know full well what Ron > is hinting at. It's another variation on your all too familiar Lucy tricks. > The role the intellectual level plays as being seen as the 'unfolding of > intuition'...the generator of truth: > > 'It is the advent of truth into the?world, a form of thought now, for the > first time, bursting into the?universe, a child of the old eternal soul, a > piece of genuine and?immeasurable greatness.'' > > It confirms your anti-intellectual attitude which YOU still consider full of > trappings like reification and objectification (hence your 'static' being > 'ever-changing'...as a way out of your conviction that the intellectual level > IS SOM). That part which ought to be 'killed'...taken from Pirsig's MoQ > which, in HIS hands is as solid as a rock and in YOUR hands as brittle as the > cast-iron seats of the Victorians. > > This is entirely YOUR weakness in the arguments (I won't call it a discussion > because you never discuss things here on this discuss!) > > That is why you still see the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and > Nagasaki as illusory. Why you see the holocaust as illusory. SHAME on you. > > To you static patterns of value have no meaning or relevance. They do not > have importance nor a role to play in the evolutionary unfolding. No role in > the ascension nor descension ( in Wilber's terms) > > It is a gross betrayal of DQ/sq which you prove, time and again, to > completely misunderstand and misconstrue because of this confusion. You talk > about 'dependent arising' whilst you fail to realize the significance of this > concept...the intimate play with each other yet.....sq is (like) an illusion. > Therefore DQ is (like)an illusion as well (what the fuck is the difference > between 'like an illusion' and 'illusion'). The question is very simple but > do not bother to answer it. It will be so much more bullshit of which you are > new-aged-ly full. > > Your retort and so called question to Ron betray this attitude and > confusion...always leaving open your Lucy slithering tactics. You will not > mend your ways. Your attitude on this discuss is deplorable. > > Keep your own soul-searching to yourself Marsha and wander around in your own > Versaille-room full of mirrors...the favourite of you know who. You do not > belong on this discuss. Perhaps you should devote your ego-centered energies > on the Patanjali-site twittering section. ___ 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
