[MD] moq thought experiement 1.

[Marsha]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <squonkmuse at talktalk.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] moq thought experiement 1.


>
> Hi Mark,?
> ?
> If you have investigated and believe this, what are you holding on to? A 
> right pattern? A wrong pattern? Where's the quality now? Now. Now. Now.?
> ?
> I want you here in this forum. I don't know where I might agree with you, 
> or if, but I want you here. I think you might give some of these delicious 
> and loveable smart-asses a run for their money. You have things to be 
> considered. Sure, pissing in a tea cup gets attention. But is it a 
> ?quality? experience??
> ?
> Geez Mark, wake up.?
> ?
> Marsha?
>
> Hi Marsha,
> This is a great question. That's the feeling i have about it.
> And the answer i've considered many times may be described in traditional 
> Western philosophy as, 'severe nominalism.' That's a phrase i've made up 
> which i think connects with those who teach me in the formal setting.
>
> If i live this and not simply state it, then i find the higher the 
> patterns are in the moq evolution, the more nominal they are, to the point 
> where leading quantum ideas support severe nominalism themselves.
>
> Social patterns are more comforting and more easy to attach to; biological 
> patterns are most comforting; and if all life died we feel a little sick 
> to think that matter would be left to sentinel what's left.
>
> But these nominal intellectual patterns were used by the Buddha to not 
> only dismantle themselves, but to dismantle everything. You're asking were 
> does that leave us?
> That's kinda the way i see it.
>
> The moq states that we should value the most nominal patterns, and that 
> makes me feel uneasy.
> How do you feel about this?
>
> squonk
>
> P.S. I may be on the verge of being cast out of the temple, again, Marsha.
> If so, i shall email you personally and thank you for your support, if you 
> are indeed supporting me?


Hi Squonk,

Nominalism?  That sounds somewhat close.  Not so sure about the severe.  The 
dragon, Nagarjuna, addresses the middleway.  Sometimes, though, I get myself 
so deep that I cannot say if the sound coming from my throat is a laugh or 
cry.  Then it's time to backdown a little.  (I think.)  I'm really a 
scarty-cat at heart.

At the moment I'm waiting to hear how Ham-I-Am defines 'autonomous self'.  I 
hope he knows that I am not so much challenging him, as myself.

Anyway, temple, or litterbox, I hope you stick around.

Marsha