[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[118]

Hi Platt,

Yes, All things passeth True understanding, in my view.  I posted a response
to you on agreement just previously.  Any answer to a question can bring
forth agreement, or a commingling of souls if you can accept such a concept,
it can also bring about the opposite.  The method of interaction and growth
of what we call knowledge is through the transmission of concepts which
point to one's awareness.  If that awareness becomes, at least
superficially, accepted by another, that provides a purpose to continue with
such creation of dual awareness.  There is something about being in a group
with mutual understanding and purpose.  I do not subscribe to the notions of
psychology or biology to explain this, for such explaining or agreement with
somehow becomes more real than the thing itself.  So, there is something
about it.

By receding into the domain of neglecting attempts at growing knowledge we
also recede from interaction on the subject.  It is one thing to say that
some things cannot be fully understood, it is another to make an attempt at
mutual understanding.  One is staying alone, the other is one of
companionship.  Both have their place, of course.  Any prohibition of such
attempts is not really very constructive.

We can agree to disagree.  Such a notion is based on respect.  It also
points to the fact that there can be much agreement on other things.  If we
use the basis of disagreement to override the other, then groups are split
into camps which only try to emphasize the disagreement aspect.  You know
the global result of such thinking.

Yes, telling someone they are on the wrong track for understanding has its
place.  However, the gentle thing to do is to explain why one's form of
understanding has value.  I am more wrong than right, which simply means
that I change my mind often, since right and wrong is somewhat subjective.
 Such is the nature of agreements.  They need not be binding, for sometimes
there is growth.  I do my best to listen and understand what is being
proposed.  The notion of leaving dynamic quality out of any conceptual
framework is one that I still do not understand, but I am willing to listen.
Cheers,
Mark

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Platt Holden <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>
> Seeking understanding by asking questions is admirable. But, my point is
> that some things "passeth understanding." Some questions simply cannot be
> answered by the static distinctions necessary for thought. All one can say,
> like the Buddha, is, "See for yourself." Once you intuitively accept as
> reality
> that "some things are better than others," the rest of discussion about the
> meaning of Quality gets all tangled up in intellectual relationships, fun
> to
> kick around among friends but in the end, "Full of fury, signifying
> nothing."
>
> Once I was in a group discussing the meaning of life. After I had held
> forth
> for awhile complaining about how I didn't understand how life could have
> any meaning since we are born, work like hell and then die, someone simply
> replied, "But, you do understand." That shut me up for I suddenly realized
> the meaning of life was the very discussion we were having, that is, the
> experience itself
>
> No matter how hard we try, Quality per se is impossible to describe. It's
> the
> nature of language to make distinctions and erect boundaries between this
> and
> that. Quality, preceding thought, is both this and that simultaneously.
>
> Best,
> Platt
>
>
>
>
> 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
>