[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[118]

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:39 PM,  <rapsncows at fastmail.fm> wrote:
Hi Tim,

When I am busy, I look for the posts that say Hi Mark, or something
like that.  On gmail I can only see about the first 6 words.
Sometimes when I have more time I go back and look at others, but I
have lots of unread email in the box.  I will keep a look out for
rapsncows and at least open those.


>>
>> [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 can sympathize with a foreign feeling to my thinking, at least
> frequently: I don't know how 'new' thoughts can arise just because I
> 'try'.

[Mark]
Yes, it means there is a "tryer" in there somewhere.  Maybe there is a
head neuron or something.  Like a five star general directing
everything, that is the "I".  Doesn't make sense to me though.
>
> I'm glad to hear that you are sure about your sense of your 'I': I was
> under the understanding that you thought otherwise (however that would
> work).  Importantly, when you say 'the "I" is what it is all about.', I
> hope you mean all I's.

[Mark]
No not otherwise.  However, having said that, it is still possible to
have an "I" that really does not exist.  Of course this is a
meaningless statement, but what I mean is that it does not arise
inherently.  This is a Buddhist notion that we are the sum of many
things and not a true existence in itself.  I think the purpose of
this is too not take things so seriously, but to be free.  Such
freedom is said to result in selfless compassion for all sentient
beings.  At least that is what the converts say.  So maybe it is good.
 It makes sense to me.  It is the ego which causes pain.  I would also
have to say that this concept is difficult for me to stay within for
very long.  Something always comes up that distracts me.

>
>> [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.
>
> [Tim]
> here I think we differ, SOM is a metaphysics, it is more than a
> perspective (though perspective is the way the 'I' would view it).  I do
> not subscribe to the idea that thinking (intellectually) is inherently
> SOM.  I think that we should be able to be SOM free all the time,
> including when thinking intellectually, if we have transcended SOM and
> come to MoQ.  Let me give one more quote from chapter 25 of Zamm, early
> on:
>
[Mark]
(Quote deleted)  I think it is possible to conceptually conceive of
the loss of SOM at all times, but it is difficult to communicate that
way.  Certainly Zen creates a fusion of self with objects.  Everything
becomes a real time interaction of the moment.  Still, if one want
someone to pass the salt, SOM creeps in.  But, I understand fully what
you are saying.  This is the path of Zen Buddhism.  Suzuki describes
it as the beginner's mind.  Everything is fresh all the time.  There
is nothing which forms the thoughts (such as something that happened
previously, or that one was mad about, for example).  I like this
idea, especially when things get complicated at work (research into
cancer diagnostics).  It frees me up and I get more intuitive.
>

>> [Mark]
>> More than one "I", interesting.
>
> [Tim]
> I'm pretty sure that we have come across to each other right, but, just
> to be sure, I have referred to different aspects of my 'I', but that the
> more than one refers to other people, you for instance.  I don't think
> there was a confusion, but just in case - or if someone else
> disconnected is ever reading through and wonders - I wanted to clarify
> it here.

[Mark]
OK, now I remember what you are talking about.  Wouldn't some of those
"I"s be objective rather than subjective?


>
> [Tim]
> Thanks for the spanish and sleepwalking examples.  About dual
> personalities, I guess that is why only the personality would be dual,
> not the 'I'.  Death is weird, I'm glad for it, but I don't like to think
> about an after.
>
[Mark]
My guess is that weirdness is the biological response.  There are ways
to get over that.  The after is the same as the before.  Wasn't so bad
was it?  In many ways it is important for us not to be controlled by a
fear of impending death.  Of course there is also Toltec spirituality
such as presented by Carlos Castaneda that states we should always be
conscious that death is right over our shoulder.  He was talking about
Warriors and such.  I am no warrior (at least not yet).

>> [Mark]
>> 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?
>
> [Tim]
> what do you mean by 'the other side of life'?

[Mark]
The Absolute


>> [Mark]
>> What? indeed.  If you can answer this you have solved the mind/matter
>> problem.
>
> [Tim]
> the problem may even be another level deeper than mind and matter.  How
> did the 'twilight zone' intro go, "into a realm of ideas..."?

[Mark]
It would seem to me that the best we can do is create something that
is meaningful.  When we enter into that, then we don't need to think
about it anymore.  I think this is what religions or philosophies
similar to religions do.  I don't know, because I am still creating
mine.

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
>