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

[MarshaV]

Greetings Tim,

My words are carefully chosen as the appropriate analogy for 
my understanding and experience and insight.  It's great that we 
may be close in understanding, but not necessary that we be 
identical.  

I prefer the word 'ultimate' as addressing the furthest reach of my 
understanding, which is ever-changing, relative and impermanent.  
As far as I am aware, I have no knowledge of anything 'Absolute'.  

The word 'flow' works because it matches the the movement of my 
thoughts during meditation.  The river analogy, with its eddies &etc.
seems a wonderful analogy.  

In turn I might wonder how your phrase "somehow absolutely real" 
doesn't put you more in my camp where 'somehow' seems nebulous,
putting the 'absolute' beyond knowing for certain.  Like you may think 
it's a rope, not knowing anything about it being an elephant.  ;-)   

So if we agree on "ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent, 
inorganic, biological, social and intellectual static patterns of value,"
I am pleased.



Marsha
 
 



On Nov 4, 2010, at 5:49 PM, rapsncows at fastmail.fm wrote:

> 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
> 
> 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


 
___