[MD] [Bulk] Re: Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Hello Marsha,

[Marsha]

> And of course we all exist, but as a flow of ever-changing,
> interdependent, impermanent, inorganic, biological, social and
> intellectual static patterns of value within a field of Dynamic Quality.  
> 
> 

"And of Course we all exist,"

I'm with you

"ever-changing"

I think this is fine

"interdependent"

great

"impermanent, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual static
patterns"

I will highlight PATTERNS just to be sure

so I think we are real close.  But...

I have always refused to define myself.  This one I'm cool with leaving
open.  After my interchanges with Mark yesterday and "A" today, I am
liking the idea that it is mainly these static patterns that are truly
mine.  But it seems that they must somehow be tied to absolute reality:
right?  I don't know what part of that is mine, if any.  There is part
of my that is the front of the train.  There is a part of me that is in
the present, acting dynamically --- and continually augmenting my train,
my SQ.  So all I'm saying is that I don't know if you have got this
quite perfect yet.

secondly, the way that absolute reality preserves itself and me,
dynamically, interdependently, may also not quite be captured perfectly
by "a flow".  Nor again, "within a field of dynamic quality"

I don't think that I have been picking nits, but we seem to be very
close.  perhaps switching to the equivalent "moral" will help.  within a
moral arena.

Thus,
And of course we all exist, but as ever-changing, interdependent,
impermanent, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual static
patterns of value, somehow absolutely real, within absolute reality, and
somehow capable of mutual influence within this field of Dynamic
Morality.

what do you think?
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users:
  http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html