[MD] Step One

[MarshaV]

On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:44 AM, 118 wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:27 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Oct 21, 2010, at 8:03 PM, 118 wrote:
>> 
>>> Marsha:
>>> I never stated that the MoQ could be described by neti-neti.  I was
>> saying
>>> to
>>> Dan that all this talk it not Quality(Ultimate Truth).
>>> 
>>> I do not understand your complaint?
>>> 
>>> Mark:
>>> My complaint was that I do not understand what you are saying.  Could all
>>> this talk be considered attempts at a metaphysical description of
>> Quality?
>>> 
>>> I have not read all of your correspondence with Dan on this subject, so
>>> perhaps I should not just jump in.  I will try to get full understanding
>>> before I just take a statement and run with it, so as not to waste your
>>> time.  I can see you are getting frustrated with my inane questions and I
>>> beg your forgiveness.   Gracias (as John would say).
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> Sorry, Mark, maybe you are projecting your frustration on to me.   I was
>> suggesting to Dan with my words 'not this, not that'  that when all is said
>> and done, if I may use an analogy; the words on the menu are not the food.
>> 
>> Please feel free to explain neti-neti to your liking.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
> 
> Mark:
> Yes you are correct, frustration on my part.  I wasn't projecting it on you,
> I was trying to explain why I was asking questions.  Perhaps I need to
> change the way I frame them.
> 
> Yes, words are an analogy as Phaedrus stated in ZAMM, that is a given in
> this forum.
> 
> I looked up the word analogy on Dictionary.com to see if it would help me
> explain.  Definitions 5 is:
> 
> 5. Logic . a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar
> to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity
> between the things in other respects.
> 
> I inferred that you were reasoning that Quality was analogous to not this,
> not that.  Clearly I was mistaken.  You were simply stating that Quality can
> not be described with words.  OK, I get it.  How is it then that you discuss
> it?
> 
> What I am asking now, is: what are the known respective properties of
> Quality?  


Mark, 


Marsha:
Naked (unpatterned experience/patterned experience); that is as deep as 
I have experienced Quality.  It is awesome realizations that I have never 
found adequately expressed by words or things, even wonderful words and 
paintings.  Though words and paintings may initiate such experience.  So can 
simple events.  It is being the unknown, undivided and undefined.  To be 
forced to pick out one or two such incidences seems like a Sophie's choice.  


> You can send me a picture if that would help, so long as you add
> some descriptive (not encrypted) words.  I do not do well with riddles.

No riddles?  But there is nothing to say or see that is not a riddle.   I wish 
I could bring you the moon...  But, there, it is outside your window, Mark.  
Go let the moon shine moonlight on your face.  



Marsha  































 
___