[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[118]

Hey Tim,
I didn't realize that I missed a post to me that I didn't answer.  By no
means do not take it personally.  I am not always there (or here), and I
forget.  Nothing more than that.  For what it is worth, I submit questions
all the time, but do not always get an answer.  Perhaps I am scary, or just
nonsense, I don't know or care really.  I get what I can.  More below.

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:56 PM, <rapsncows at fastmail.fm> wrote:

>  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!
>

[Mark]
Sometimes I am not that clear.  However, the sense of self or "I" is about
the only thing that I am sure about.  Even my thinking happens to me as
something foreign.  But the "I" is what it is all about.

>
>
> [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]
Yes, I would agree.  SOM is a perspective.  I think we only refer to it in
retrospect or when we are communicating.  Most of our time is SOM free.  We
do a lot of things besides think intellectually throughout the day.

>
>
> > [Mark before]
> > 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]
This was meant more for Marsha.  Sometimes words are used that confuse me.
 Perhaps I over analyze them.  Been known to happen.

>
>
>
> >
> > [Mark before] 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]
More than one "I", interesting.  I grew up speaking Spanish, but came to the
US many years ago, and switched to English full time.  I have found that
when I speak in Spanish now, I think differently, kind of much younger.  But
it is still the same "I".  Another story, I am an avid sleepwalker.  I will
wake up to find myself somewhere else.  When I can remember what I was sleep
thinking, it could be that I was on a bus or something.  So the reality is
completely different, however, the "I" is still the same.  I would imagine
that for those who are seriously dual in personality, the "I" is still the
same, the brain cannot remember the other one when it is not present.  Don't
know if this makes sense, but it is my notion of the "I".  This also allows
for reincarnation without memory of what was before.  That is the "I" is the
same, but the brain is different.  Now, some Buddhists claim that memory can
escape the physical and reappear.  This may be possible, but it is too
complicated for me.  Someday it will make sense, once I create it; got to
think about Karma and forces and something else to get there.

>
> > [Mark before]  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), ...
>

[Mark]
Two I's again...  I can't remember the context of what I was saying with
process.  Perhaps it was the dynamic aspect of life or something.  Memory
creates a continuity in process in my opinion.  There was a movie a few
years ago, Fifty First Dates or something.  The premise was that each
morning a girl woke up without remembering the immediate past, and started
over.  This would be weird.  A book I read recently by Umberto Ecco, The
Mysterious Flame of Queen Loanna), also dealt with the loss of personal
memory.  It was interesting, but conceded that the "I" was still there.

Certainly there are things that we call absolute, or unchanging.  One could
be the other side of life for example.  It is hard with our current
available senses to really conceive of these things, and change is easier.
 Perhaps change is absolute, or energy is absolute, or the use of sex in
Hollywood.  Who knows?

>
>  >
> > [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.
>

[Mark]
Every event, as in every movement of a molecule, to choosing to go right
instead of left.  Either there are choices at every moment, or there are no
choices at all.  That is my ultimatum (for now), just to open it up for
discussion.  I could change my mind.  The many "I"'s reminds me of a movie
"What the Bleep is it all About?".  There were many parallel paths that the
'I" could take, and possibly did.  Neal Stephenson also dealt with this
subject in his recent "Anathem".  The idea as I saw it was that we all live
for the longest time possible.  When others die (young for example) that is
just in our reality.  In their reality we could die young.  It is kind of an
interesting idea, and solves the issue of why them and not me?

[Tim]

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

[Mark]
What? indeed.  If you can answer this you have solved the mind/matter
problem.

>
> Cheers,
>
Mark

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