[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[MarshaV]

On Dec 1, 2010, at 4:51 PM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> I think you are being a little confusing.  Your terms seem to contradict.  I
> know you understand what you are talking about, but the expression leaves on
> mystified.  Some comments below on your reply to Tim.
> 
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:17 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> [Tim]
> 
> THe collection is not casual; there is some
>>> not-so-changing consistency through it all.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> Collection - many - one's static value history.
>> 
>> Please described  that not-so-changing consistency?  I have never
>> found it such.
>> 
>> [Mark]
> I know you are trying to press a point here Marsha, but as you describe it,
> we could not function.  We tie things together, we have to.  Such tying is
> real, it's what we do.  

Marsha:
We?  What is the we but a process?


> [Mark]
> Our bodies seem the same from moment to moment.

Marsha:
Seems?  It may seem the same, but it the same?  


> [Mark]
> Every moment cannot be a blank slate.  

Marsha:
Every moment cannot be a blank slate.   


> [Mark]
> So memory creates not-so-everchanging consistency.  

Marsha:
How does memory create anything?


> [Mark]
> If memory is not real, then we have a problem with the definition
> of real.  

Marsha:
I never uttered the word 'real'.   

> [Mark]
> Are you a different person every moment?  

Marsha:
I've never be aware of a sameness.  


> [Mark]
> I know the I does not exist if you don't want it to, but it sure is
> useful.  In terms of dismissing SOM in an objective way, we can either say
> that we do not exist, or we are everything.  Both work and I prefer the
> latter (at least today).

Marsha:
I exist as a movement of ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent 
static/dynamic value.  


>>> [Tim]
>>> there is still a little nit that I picked before, regarding 'flowing':
>>> that this might be too restrictive a term; But I think this is off topic
>>> now.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> Flowing is an analogy.  What word do you prefer.
>> 
> 
> [Mark]
> How about interchanging?  A stream has to flow past something, what is that
> something?

Marsha:
I like the word 'flow' because it is poetic.  Interchanging within the net of jewels?   


>>> [Tim]
>>> also, while I'm at it, I wonder why you have both 'ever-changing' and
>>> 'impermanent', specifically, why do you insist on the latter?
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> A pattern event is always different, from individual to individual, across
>> time, and within the DQ field.  Granted time and space and change are
>> givens, but I don't know how to talk without assuming them.  I suppose
>> that's the difficulty with discussing superposition and entanglement too,
>> The concepts are beyond our metaphysical assumptions and linguistic
>> rules.  And why I get frustrated speaking of unpatterned experiences.
>> 
>> Impermanent because an experience/event has a beginning, a middle
>> and an end.
>> 
> 
> [Mark]
> I think the question was one about redundancy.  Ever changing requires
> impermanency.  

Marsha:
It may be redundant, but I like sometimes to be redundant.  I think you do too.   


> [Mark]
> If you are stating that an experience is finite, when does it begin, and when
> does it end?  

Marsha:
I am not stating that an experience is finite.   


> [Mark]
> Are we talking about birth and death, or something more fundamental?

Marsha:
I am not talking about birth and death, or anything more fundamental?     


> [Mark]
> Like you say, the concept of ever-changing requires some solid reference to
> measure against.  If there is no solid reference, we cannot conclude that
> things are ever-changing.  We can consider ever-changing to be static, but
> if ever-changing changes, will it not become permanent?  This is where your
> words are confusing.

Marsha:
Hmmmm.  An static value event will change with the change of all other 
static value events.   


>> [Tim]
>>> Anyway, to hint at my answer, even if I don't end up 'having a problem'
>>> with your description, I think I will prefer one that mentions 'choice'
>>> and 'will', as I see these as the two most vital prerogatives of the
>>> 'I'.  Further, it is not the static patterns that choose and will, nor
>>> is it so much the 'collection'... where do choice and will come from in
>>> your description?
>> 
>> [Marsha]
> 
>> Choice?  Like in freewill?  Do you want choice in every event?  Do you
>> want to choose when to breath?  What category of choice do you prefer
>> to make?  How many possible mental events happen in a minute?
>> 
>> For me, awareness allows influencing an event.
>> 
> 
> [Mark]
> Either you allow choice at every event, or you allow no choice.  There
> cannot be some things that contain choice and others that don't.  If there
> is, where does this magic line appear?  If you are speaking of conscious
> choice, what is it that is making that choice?  Where is your chooser?

Marsha:
I allow influence through awareness.  



>>> And about what you opposed your description with (in connection with
>>> your description): mu.
>> 
>> Nothing to say in opposition to someone's mu.  These are not easy
>> issues.
>> 
> 
> [Mark]
> Mu

Marsha:
In the words of Hathor, "moo."   

___