[MD] is-ness

[MarshaV]

At 02:01 PM 8/19/2008, you wrote:

>Marsha:
> > I remember Arlo once writing, that people write of only who
> > they want
> > you to know.  Not so.  I don't have much filtering.
> > First that
> > sometimes leaves me feeling vulnerable.  Second, according
> > to Octavio
> > Paz, men think that exposing themselves is a weakness, and
> > therefore,
> > women are weak.  I'm still a product of this culture,
> > so of course I
> > doubt.  I'm as f*cked up as the next America woman.
>
>SA:  Octavio can't be all right.  I remember writing a thread called 
>Am I too Open.  I've pretty much layed out everything on this forum, 
>except that name thing that bothers you so much, but did you ever 
>see "Dark Knight"?  Anime, comics, as I've said before, ARE the 
>modern day mythologies.  That movie, excuse this language - KICKED 
>ASS!  It was one of the best movies I've ever seen.

I grant you that nothing or nobody is all anything.

I'm glad you like the movie, I'll rent it when it's available.  I 
liked The Girl in the Cafe.






>SA previously:
> > >   Your recent posts do come off as if your looking for
> > somebody to
> > > help you calm down, if that's what you mean by
> > "challenge".
>
>Marsha:
> > Is that so?  I meant honestly challenge MY thinking.  I
> > care about
> > the questions considered here.  I care that I think them
> > through
> > myself, not just mimic.  For instance, I like the idea of
> > science,
> > but I don't actually trust it.  It's a bit of a
> > dilemma.  Nagarjuna's
> > MMK blows my mind.  It both appeals to my bone marrow and
> > alienates
> > me.  When I'm out and about and attempting to chat with
> > people, my
> > talk seems false and true.  I don't like feeling false.
> >  Even to my
> > own family, there is a basic not speaking truth.  Do you
> > understand
> > what I'm saying?  I'm an alien.  Luckily I play
> > well by myself.
>
>SA:  I did understand you, until you said, "there is a basic not 
>speaking truth", yet, you "don't like feeling false".  Sounds as if 
>you can't avoid it.  I think your thinking too much or trying to 
>hard.  Isn't the answer right in front of you "not sure that I am 
>representing the two truths correctly".  That's sounds baseline to 
>me.  I know you want to discuss what your trying to say, but you 
>can't say it all - and by saying this haven't I pretty much summed 
>up the endeavor.  Live.  Try.  I'm not where you are, but I find 
>living to be what these thoughts are trying to help us do.  Keep up 
>the spirit.  I like the concept spirit.  For one it means "how is 
>your spirit - how are you doing/feeling".  Secondly, spirit means 
>"can't break that horses spirit" or "look at the spirit of that 
>person - so strong", spontaneity, living your routine without an 
>overload of outside impediment where your routine in the day is 
>healthy and spiritually significant.  By
>  spiritually I mean "way of spirit", and I defined how I understand 
> what spirit is above.  Depth of consciousness has to do with a good 
> spirit, especially in the spontaneity aspect as you might notice.

I charm the pants of young and old, and love them all.  That's not 
what I mean.

I do the best that I can.



>Marsha:
> > And in the forum, I am not sure that I am representing the
> > two truths
> > correctly.  My language still sometimes sounds strange to
> > me.
>
>SA:  It really doesn't sound strange at all.  It's as I've said 
>before.  I've been using my quiet woods understanding, the zazen, 
>and sitting by the fire to understand the moq.  It's my 
>preconceptions in how/what the moq is.  I said long ago when I 
>joined, learning about the moq and discussing on this forum was more 
>about learning the language of the moq to discuss what I knew 
>already.  You really don't sound strange Marsha, but then again I've 
>been known to be strange and labeled such, not on this forum but in my life.


I miss full-moon nights around the fire.  Drums beating, sparks 
raising, chanting...   Orion lying low in the sky.

You, my friend, are a treasure.




>SA previously:
> > >Isn't the quiet challenge enough at times?  I mean,
> > by challenge,
> > >are you saying you want somebody to talk to and debate
> > with.  That's
> > >something the moq discuss website - cites - as what can
> > stir a
> > >discussion - controversy, be controversial and like
> > Ham, Bo, and
> > >Platt you might get people talking with you all the
> > time, even if
> > >you don't even like the moq and discuss the moq
> > (Ham) you'll have
> > >people talking to you on this forum all the time.
> > Ironic eh?
>
>Marsha:
> > I'm think everyone is here because of ZMM, LILA, &
> > MOQ, and are
> > trying to work out these ideas for themselves.  That's
> > good enough
> > for me.  Now would be a good time for some quiet.
>
>SA:  I'm not putting any words in anybody's mouth.  Ham obviously 
>states he doesn't find the moq to meet his essentialism.  Ham will 
>only talk with you if you don't bring up the moq.  Sometimes he gets 
>curious, but usually it ends up being a discussion on his 
>thesis.  Bo states he likes the first chapters in ZMM and then 
>thinks the rest of the moq or what people discuss about the moq 
>(Pirsig included) is a mix up.  He doesn't like Lila and would have 
>rather had Lila not written.  That's what he says.  You know 
>that.  I'm only repeating what they say.  Scared?  Anyways, my point 
>was be controversial if you want people to challenge your 
>thoughts.  It's in the moq website on how to discuss in the forum.  Look it up.


Bo and Ham are great.  I've learned from both of them.  They both 
care.  They have a different MOQ point-of-view from mine.  That's 
fine.  I like diversity.  They both make me think.  And I do like to think.

But that biology-thing is pretty cool too.


Marsha






.
.

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