[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[MarshaV]

On Dec 13, 2010, at 7:48 AM, rapsncows at fastmail.fm wrote:

> 
> 
> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>> 
>>>> My position keeps going poof.  
>>>> 
>>>> I can adopt a hypothetical, unique, proprietary self for the sake of 
>>>> Ham's Essence Metaphysics, but it does not hold together on 
>>>> investigation.  Look, I am a static girl living in a static world; don't 
>>>> see that there's a way around it.  That's the way the world has 
>>>> evolved to function.  But upon investigation it all collapses.  Time, 
>>>> space and self dissolve, and it is analogy/patterns all the way 
>>>> down.  Even the Buddhists postulate a continuity of individual 
>>>> consciousness on which is built karma, reincarnation and etc., but 
>>>> it all seems to be built on assumptions.  It might be that I have not 
>>>> developed the skills to experience an unbroken continuity, so the 
>>>> best I can accept is Quality(unpatterned/patterned).  This is not a 
>>>> denigration of static quality which always seem to have a 
>>>> wondrous existence.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes the collection of patterns could seem "unique," but based on 
>>>> what other than assumption?  Sooo, I don't know...  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Tim]
>>> This was really nice.  Again, thanks.
>>> 
>>> I don't know how much you were looking for a real answer to this
>>> question about 'unique' and 'assumption', so I'll just say that I this
>>> is why I have (and I think this is why John has too) come to
>>> re-institute a word like faithe into my vocabulary.  Let me know if you
>>> want more here.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> I am reconsidering the terms 'faith' and 'spiritual' in terms of heart.  
>> 
> 
> [Tim]
> 'faithe' for me is the verb which I have recently adopted, for now, to
> describe the ineffible mystical process of living through the utter
> present of DQ.

Marsha:
Okay.  


>>>   
>>>  
>>> [Tim]
>>> But, I think that I have picked up on a pattern, not to say that it is
>>> strict or anything, but I think you enjoy short responses aiming at one
>>> highest quality point.  Therefore, my question here: you like that
>>> '[your] position keeps going poof', don't you!?
>> 
>> [Marsha]  I don't like or dislike my position,
> 
> [Tim]
> Don't you think you should be permitted to like it, even if you should
> flip-flop on an issue?  

Marsha:
I have never considered if I should be permitted to like or dislike this position.  
I don't see it as an issue.   Thoughts are like the breath, they come, they go; 
where are they?   

Have I flip-flopped on an issue?    

> What good is the heart then?

Marsha:
I'm not sure how the heart should be related?  I did write that I was reconsidering 
the term. 


>> [Marsha] but recognize that static knowledge is relative, all interconnected
>> and co-dependent. Meditation gives one some special insight into the 
>> nature of all the thoughts we hold so important.  They go poof.  That 
>> understanding seems to leave room for one's heart to participate, but 
>> is that always good?
> 
> [Tim]
> whether they stay firm, or whether they go poof, if their staying or
> going is of Quality I think you should be able to like them.  And even
> when you don't like it, or even when you don't like or dislike it, it
> seems you should be able to like that, at least.

Marsha:
If I become involved in personally judging the thoughts good or bad, I am 
no longer involved in watching them come and go.  They come, they go.   


>> [Marsha]  I'm a student, a novice, and still have too many 
>> questions.   
> 
> [Tim]
> student and too many questions I buy.  And that seems good and healthy. 
> Novice seems like false humility :)

Marsha:
novice...   

> [Tim]
> --- it was the intellectual rigor
> with which you held to the position of pure process that led to my
> disappointment with your lack of a response recently.  

Marsha:
My lack of response was caused by not recognizing anything familiar to 
comment about.  It was like all of a sudden you were talking about the 
color blue.  I had no response that seemed meaningful.   


> [Tim]
> I can't
> comprehend that degree of poof-iness (and if you knew the poof-iness I
> understand this would be something: I know the cutest cat I've ever
> known, not mine :(, but there is much ado about her poof!).  Anyway, if
> firmness of my fundament(s) - something-is and I am - ever become a
> problem, I will have an example of poofiness to help me, thanks!

Marsha:
Okay, you are uncomfortable with the word 'poof'.  I meant like the 
disappearance of a rabbit from a magician's top hat.  I didn't mean it 
as a threat to your manliness.  I forgot that you are a man and might like 
your language a little more ballsy.   ;-)   


 
___