[MD] MOQ and Completeness Theories (Sorry, Godel.)

[118]

Hi Dave,

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 8:33 AM, David Thomas
<combinedefforts at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Dan
>
>> Armchair quarterbacking again, David?
>
> [Dave]
>
> Again? Still would be more like it, and quarterback, even of the armchair
> type, is way, way, above my pay grade.  I'm often not sure what game is
> being played, let alone what side the players are on, what positions they
> play or even if there are positions. Other than the "Fuck Your Buddy" kind
> of course.
>
> More and more my thinking is in the vein of, "So this is how religions
> emerge and develop?" "Bobhism?"  Understand there is a proposal before the
> elders that all temples must be converted old, worn out motorcycle repair
> shops. Preferably specializing in obscure brands or models that never were
> widely popular but that had fanatical fans. So hang in there you may be
> holding onto a gold mine ;-)

[Mark]
In my opinion, religions develop because there are people who want to
lead, and people who want to follow.

Bobhism has been around for a long time, since about 600 AD.  The
early Zen Buddhists did not want people following scripture, or
praying to idols or other people.  That was an extreme anathema and
demonstrated that such deciples were misled and caught up in words.
Living in Quality has no words, it can't.  We do not have enough time
while we are in the present moment.  Having said this, speaking is
dynamic quality in action.  This is not a paradox, it simply points to
dynamic quality.  Dynamic Quality is right now.
>
Cheers,
Mark
>
>
> 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
>