[MD] Take things apart or build them?

[MarshaV]

At 03:16 PM 4/30/2008, you wrote:

>Marsha:
> > I love the easy questions.  One: take things apart,
> > Two: build
> > things, and  my very favorite: all of the above.
>
>SA:  Sure, but I'm not quite sure everybody does the
>"all of the above" approach.  Ham and Bo have
>concluded that an aspect of reality is separated into
>parts with a dividing line that can't be bridged.
>They support SOM.  They like to break reality down
>into parts that are separated.
>
>
>Marsha:
> > Being a born skeptic, the tough question is, 'How do
> > I know?'  For
> > instance, that form is emptiness, emptiness is form,
> > and might as
> > well add emptiness is empty, seems (though not as
> > easily on paper)
> > intuitionally correct.  BUT, how do I know?   How do
> > you know?
>
>SA:  It's more of what I find myself doing.  Instead
>of separating life into divisions that can't be
>bridged, I find myself making bridges even between s's
>and o's.  I call this bridge, at the moment, an event.
>


Greetings SA,

Hmmmm.  Would that be an event of direct perception or a conceptual 
event?  And if it's a conceptual event how does it happen?  I really 
want to know.  Psyche had to know, I am not any different.

white dogwood blossoms,
Marsha

p.s.  I'm avoiding this difficult book.  This morning I spent 2 hours 
on 3 pages and got nowhere.  Naming is up ahead.  I bet that will be easier.









Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...