[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Mark, (Marsha too)
I would not have seen to look you up here if it weren't for seeing .... 
ahhhh anyway, below I see you say, "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)." --- 
woo hoo, I can address YOU, at least today!

I don't know that I owe YOU an apology, but the last time I wrote to you
(and you did not reply) I was very frustrated and short; it was a bad
day and I didn't live up to my best standard for myself.  Anyway, I hope
you can keep from holding it against me too much.  It was just very
frustrating to be putting myself out there (and this is public), and to
find that there was noone on the other side.  If I went around on the
street trying to convince benches and bus-stop coverings that they were
I's I would get locked up.  I could not understand how YOU, YOU YOU YOU,
could maintain that you were NOT.  So, that you will say you are today,
even if you think that I am not, well, that is just great!

more below:

> > [Mark]
> 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).

[Tim]
I will continue to maintain that one can destroy SOM without doing away
with subjects and objects!  I had a long reply to Andre two days ago in
which I quoted RMP from chapter 25 of ZAMM.  After sending that I looked
back at the very beginning of the chapter, which is about the only thing
I didn't type up.  On my page 263: "Quality isn't something you lay on
top of subjects and objects like tinsel on a Christmas tree.  Real
Quality must be the source of the subjects and objects, the cone from
which the tree must start."  The MoQ is not to destroy subjects and
objects but to help you see what is real through the distortion.  The
MoQ is to help you be a better YOU.  Within reality.


> [Mark]
> How about interchanging?  A stream has to flow past something, what is
> that something?

[Tim]
I'm still not too interested in trying to perfect this, but there might
be something helpful here if I tried.


> 
> [Mark]
> I think the question was one about redundancy.  Ever changing requires
> impermanency.  If you are stating that an experience is finite, when does
> it
> begin, and when does it end?  Are we talking about birth and death, or
> something more fundamental?

[Tim]
yes, nice assist.  MARK!  At least for today. ;)

> 
> [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.

[Tim]
I think if I were to pry open this crack I might find some purchase to
convince you of the import, value, meaning, of having more than one 'I'.
 I'm not going to pry at this now, but only suggest that you might,
Mark-at-least-for-today.  Further, let me point out that to admit of I's
is not to admit of the boundaries assigned to them commonly.  In fact,
if you were to hunt through all my posts to see how I talked about the
'I', the inviolate part lies behind the veil of reality, behind the
mental-I and the material-I.  I am quite in your camp if you would just
say that the boundary of the 'I' in the material world is unknown.  This
permits you to be unselfconscious of yourself when dealing with objects,
like motorcycles, torn slots, Korean walls, etc., but at the same time
to recognize that there must be other I's whose wills and choices are
real, and with whom you must interact, ...

> [Mark]  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.

[Tim]
Mark, about permanence... Marsha, I think this is the same point I
concluded with you when we last talked.  You said something like, sorry
if I butcher you, 'all is process'.  For me, I see 'process' mainly in
my dynamic maintenance in, what I prefer to call, something-is - but
think DQ.  There is an absolute, in the realm of idea, concept,
something-is must be; this is because nothing is impossible, and it
really shouldn't be said.  This, in it self, may not necessarily imply
(though it may too) and sort of difference or process.  BUt, so long as
there are at least two (I's), ...

Marsha, in my conversations with Ham recently I have said, though in
many different ways: 'By ____________ , I am, in something-is.'  In the
blank I have used various strings of letters, and I am not quite
satisfied with any of them, probably because, ultimately, the nature of
the process is unknown.  I think I like 'faithe' best, but I have used
'dsalkj' and 'relating', and your 'process' seems just as good.  Anyway,
I guess that I am asking why this absolute is not something to which you
will submit - recognizing that the three meaningful terms, 'faithe',
'I', and 'something-is' are all precisely unknown (but that this doesn't
hinder the statement!).  I don't think that the adoption of this
foundation can bother you in any way, and it can provide great benefit,
especially when such benefit is needed most.


> 
> [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?
> 

[Tim]
Mark, as with Marsha, I don't know what to make of 'every event'. 
However, if I need a magic line to answer you, the magic line is: 1) the
boundary between possible and impossible which confines even
something-is.  And two, respect (as reality imposes such an absolutely
hard constraint) for the choice of other I's.  Reality is as a forum
where the choices of all I's realize. While your choice is real, at
every moment, you cannot choose the impossible, and you cannot make
others' choices for them.

but yes, 'what is it that is making that conscious choice?'

I hope you stick around, Mark,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail