[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[118]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:53 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

>
> >>
> >> [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]
We are not the process, we are conscious of the process.  You know better
than that.

>
>
> > [Mark]
> > Our bodies seem the same from moment to moment.
>
> Marsha:
> Seems?  It may seem the same, but it the same?
>

[Mark]
What perspective are you going for.  From a quantum level they are not the
same at any time, in fact they are all probabilities.  From a geological
level, they are as close to non-existent as you can get.  To us, they are
the same. All of these are analogies.  Sure, one can choose an analogy that
is different from common sense.  I suppose this works if it makes one happy.
 I am all for happy.

>
>
>  > [Mark]
> > So memory creates not-so-everchanging consistency.
>
> Marsha:
> How does memory create anything?
>

[Mark]
Memory interacts with our conscious being.  It is formed and retained by the
organ known as the brain and other parts.  As such, it creates the static
nature we find ourselves in.  It creates the possibility for learning.  It
creates love, nostalgia, wonder, epiphanies, gluttony.  I could go on, but
I'll stop.

>
>
>  > [Mark]
> > Are you a different person every moment?
>
> Marsha:
> I've never be aware of a sameness.
>

[Mark]
Is this the same Marsha that started the post, or are you another one.
 Perhaps you should start giving yourself numbers, so that I know who I am
talking to, Bobby, or was the Estherooneyall II?

>
>
> > [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.
>

[Mark]
Where are you moving to?  If you state that you are a whirlpool, then what
is it that exists beyond the physical?  I am just searching for a frame of
reference to use for myself.  You can be glib, but that would be somewhat
insulting.  However, I do like to be insulted too.  It is kind of a win-win,
Piglet.

>
>
> > [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?
>

[Mark]
Flow is cool.  I am working on the Tree of Saphires, a book on Qabalah
meditation.  Man those guys are way out there.  Curtains and everything.

>
>
> > [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]
yeah,  I am trying to understand Tim's questions at the same time.  I don't
have a problem with it.

>
>
> > [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]
OK, I think that is why Tim was asking about impermanence.

>
>
>  > [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.
>

[Mark]
Entanglement?  There was a recent article in Science News on this that a
friend sent me.  When the coin is flipped in the Dallas game, the coin flip
in Seattle is predetermined.  This would be great for Las Vegas.  Now if I
could only figure out how it works...  I want to be a millllllionerrr, or so
it is written.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/65060/title/everyday_entanglement

>
> > [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.
>

[Mark]
Yes, I think this is about the only influence we have.  All else is on
autopilot.

>
> > [Mark]
> > Mu
>
> Marsha:
> In the words of Hathor, "moo."
>

[Mark]
I prefer "Woof"

Thanks for the give and take.
Later alligator.
Mark

>
> ___
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>