[MD] Right, I don't think of it as killing the intellect.

[John Carl]

Hey Mark,

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:05 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey John,


John prev:


> , since the seeing of any static pattern is largely a matter of
> > attachment (caring) then it's hard to see any functional difference from
> a
> > hurried glance.
>
> [Mark]
> My sense of attachment is a bit different.  We could say that by
> making a pattern, it has meaning for us and therefore we become
> attached to it.


John:

That seems the most concise way of putting it, yes.

Mark:


>  I would say that in the levels of awareness once can
> place such patterning as subservient to a more encompassing sense of
> transience.



John

Hmmmm.... yes, I suppose we could say it that way.  But that way seems a bit
complicated and in need of a lot of explanation to support it.  "more
encompassing sense of transience" for instance, just sails right over my
head.

Mark:

 In this way it may be possible to create a pattern
> without attachment.


John:

How?  One has to care to see a pattern, in order to see it.  You have to
try.  You have to use concepts such as order and symetry and repetition over
time, in order to call something a pattern, and once you see it that way,
you are attached to your interpretation.

Mark:


> This is, in a way, stepping back from the pattern
> to place it in a symbolic representation from the Intellectual level.
>


John:

Ok, I get what you mean.  It's that objective distance thing that intellect
does so well.  It's meta-playing.   Ok, I get that.  But there's still a
form of attachment in any pattern formation for it's the glue of attachment
that is at the roots of what makes staticity stick.  Capische?

Mark:


> By doing this, the pattern does not mean as much as what it
> represents.


John:

Meta play indeed!

Mark:


> Since this is method for abstraction it is free to change
> at a whim.  There are of course different levels (interpretations) of
> attachment itself, and logically it can be all reduced to the same
> thing.  If one is attached to logic that is.
>

John:

One definitely is.  One can just sort of tell.




> >
> > When freeing one's cup becomes making a sieve.
> >
> [Mark]
> Sounds cool, but I don't quite get it.  How about freeing one's mind
> to become a window.
>
>
A mind clear as glass is a good thing to have.  I don't know if the same
could be said for a head like a sieve.

John the sounds cool