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

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Marsha,
my comments below,
Tim


[From the conversation between Marsha and Tim]

> 
> Marsha:
> There is no object of analogy; there is only process/experience.  
> An analogy is a process pointing to a process pointing to a process 
> etc., etc., etc.   
> 
> Are your preferences a type of object?  Or process?   

[Tim]
I am thinking both, simultaneously...

let me ask: what pointed to the analogy/process/experience at the
outset?  Is there such a boundary I can rightfully call the 'outset'?
 

> 
> Marsha:
> Relatively  close, maybe?  What should we inform that naughty Social 
> Level?  How about that freedom's just another word for nothing left to 
> lose.  

[Tim]
am I giving this too much consideration?  It is hard for me to be
certain, but I think you chose these words carefully too.  How do you
describe your relation to the process?  Are you the process?  I am
really running myself over teh coals here trying to see what role others
play in the process.  Help please!  Another person would only want
freedom from the process (independence) if they hated teh process and
felt they had nothing left to lose?
 
> 
> Marsha:
> I don't see it that way.  I see it as Quality(unpatterned experience/
> patterned experience), pure process, no thing, no absolute.

 
> Marsha:
> Knowing it doesn't mean one has the best words to talk about it.  In fact 
> talking about it may prevent one from knowing it.  It's the Mother of all 
> paradoxes.  ...  But I cannot think what is more important.   Really.   
> 
> Knowing for me has taken on a rather odd flavor.  I've read, and it 
> seems true, that the best way to approach Quality (Ultimate Truth) is 
> by discovering what is false.  
> 

[Tim]
ha ha!  I think I see.  Ultimate Truth rather than absolute ...  Fine
... I concur: it seems that it is Ultimate Truth that bounds the process
at the outset.  Perhaps it is a leap of faith, but mustn't an ultimate
truth be a thing, qua thing.  Maybe then we can even conserve your
distaste for thing-y-ness in the process; I mean, I definitely agree
that the thing-y-ness of common things is either illusory in teh hard
sense, or perceptual in the soft sense...  But in the realm of ideas,
cant a thing be a thing?  (I think that this use runs through what I
have already said)



> Marsha:
> 
> Paradox!  
> 
> Maybe if I become enlightened the words will flow like honey.   But at 
> the moment they bounce and ramble like analogies.   But I try my best.   
> 
> DQ is sq, sq is DQ.  Isn't it a miracle that we are here, in this forum,
> touching Quality? 
>

[Tim]
with my new found perspective of faith, being seemingly banal - thus
transcendant - it seems that there might be place for 'miracle' in my
lexicon, and that it's proper use is in the seemingly banal.  That the
Idea of a motorcycle can faithfully exist and can actually lead to the
illusion of a working material motorcycle which, via DQ, simultaneously
grants the illusory perceptions of riding that motorcycle: whoa! that
felt real!  Miracle!
 
> 
> > either way, the question is: isn't the goal of all this just to get out,
> > and by out I mean intellectually out of the intellectualization of a
> > distorted image of the past, and matterially, into a material pattern,
> > fairly constituted, and especially so regarding: social individuals -
> > organized based on the best that the intellectual level has to offer?
> 
> Marsha:
> I am not so far enough along that I can see the end of the tunnel, but I
> might 
> guess that it is good to understand intellectualization as a pretty good
> tool, 
> but nothing more.  I want to say something about what makes your heart
> skip 
> a beat, or takes your breath away.  Bumpity, bump - bump - bounce...  
> 

[Tim]
I wonder about two independent ideas interacting.  Miracle!!
 
> >> [Marsha] So if we agree on "ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent, 
> >> inorganic, biological, social and intellectual static patterns of value,"
> >> I am pleased.
> > 
> > [Tim]
> > I think I have one correction: (actually two, the first is that, as I
> > recall, I left out 'of value' the first time) I have to leave off '
> > static patterns'.  Perhaps it is best to put back "of value" ---> 
> > "ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent, inorganic, biological,
> > social, intellectual _________________  of value".  I guess, we both
> > believe we need to use some uncertainty.  I just think there is value to
> > using some in the blank too.  I guess I'm suggesting that, to me, it
> > seems like, in saying 'static pattern', you are finding outlet for the
> > "absolute" you were lacking before.  And that phaedrus would suggest
> > that that outlet should rather come as a faith in the absoluteness of
> > some You, which Knows Quality.
> 
> Marsha:
> I know it is a cliche, but the journey is the destination.  And I suppose
> that 
> makes me the journey.

[Tim]
if you are an idea, you can be A limitless journies

> 
> 
> Thanks Tim...   
> 
> Marsha
> 


Thank you too,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class