[MD] freewill

Thu Apr 21 13:39:58 PDT 2011

Hi Marsha,
Rorschack may work better.  I do not find your posts ridiculous,
please don't project.  I have lots of opinions that I throw out for
feedback.  If you like, I can present you with questions instead, but
that would be presumptive of me that you would want to answer them.
Don't be afraid, I am just an avatar having fun in cyberspace, can't
hurt you.  I can't think of anything worse than following in my
footsteps.

Static habit of thought as opposed to what?  Is there a dynamic
process of thought.  I think so, and it is what I have been posting
for a while.  You seem to have an idea of what I am thinking.  Please
let me know, sometimes I am not always sure.

By the way, I like chocolate chip.

Courage,
Mark

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:08 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> And?  You've expressed an opinion, and?  I did not see a question,
> so?  Is there a specific point you'd like to discuss further or should
> I use try to apply a Rorschack method.  Maybe you think I should
> go bake cookies because my posts are so ridiculous?  I think it's
> about the journey, so maybe you think I should follow in your
> footsteps?
>
> Of course, I use the word 'I' all the time, it's a significant pronoun in
> the language I speak, and it represents a habit of thought.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> On Apr 21, 2011, at 1:39 AM, 118 wrote:
>
>> Hi Marsha,
>>
>> I am still a little confused about what is being pointed to with the
>> word pattern.  What is presented just doesn't make sense to me.  Most
>> of our days are not patterned experience, as far as I can tell.  We
>> pattern things by forming an image in our heads for what appears
>> outside.  We certainly do not do that for over 99% of our experience.
>> We certainly speak in patterns, but we are not talking all the time.
>> And even when talking, that is only a small part of what is happening
>> right then.  When one approaches each moment in a mindful manner it is
>> easier to see how the mind is constantly jumping, second to second.
>> Most of that is not patterned.  Perhaps I don't understand patterned.
>> Perhaps I am tired of reading that word.  Perhaps I am an ornery old
>> man.
>>
>> Nonduality is not some intellectual achievement.  Most of our day is
>> not dual, this is easy to see if one pays attention.  There is no
>> subject or object when one is dancing.  What is the object of dancing?
>> When we choose to talk about it, then it becomes dual because we must
>> resort to agreed on methods.  If we care to share something we pattern
>> it.  Otherwise we don't.  This as I have suggested is the societal
>> level impinging on the personal level.  Naming is a tool used for
>> communication, nothing else.  We don't have to know that a tree is
>> called a tree, unless we want to share it.
>>
>> Let's say that I am continually changing.  The fact that I use the
>> pronoun "I" means that I believe I exist.  I believe you, Marsha, also
>> use the word "I" sometimes.  We can say that we believe certain
>> things, but it becomes obvious from the rhetoric used that we really
>> don't.  Many who are enlightened such as some Christians or Buddhist
>> refer to themselves as "this body".  I think that is kind of silly if
>> you ask me (yeah, I know, nobody ever does).  The fact that I change
>> and cannot be pinpointed does not mean that I don't exist.  If that
>> were true then a tornado would not exist.  My daughter, who is in
>> school in North Carolina, would say that's silly.  "Dad, are you
>> talking about that weird stuff again?"
>>
>> When you state that there is a fundamental unity, I think I know what
>> you are pointing at.  However, fundamental unity has no reference, so
>> it could be everything or nothing both at the same time.  We could say
>> that water has fundamental unity.  But such a statement is comparing
>> it to something that doesn't.  If everything is the same thing, then
>> we could easily say that by that logic, everything is different too.
>> Saying that everything has fundamental unity is good rhetoric, but is,
>> in the end, a meaningless statement.
>>
>> People are using "Not this, not that" in ways it was never intended to
>> be used.  It has lost all meaning.  As if "not this, not that"
>> actually presents an argument of something.  This is absurd, if I may
>> say so (forgot to ask permission).  Like: "What is it?"  "Well, it IS
>> not this, not that".  What is that all about?  IS it something or
>> isn't it?  If it isn't then what is all the fuss about?  If it is
>> something, well. by golly, then let's talk about it.  I guess it
>> depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
>>
>> Cheers as always,
>> Mark
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:58 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello John,
>>>
>>> An unpatterned experience IS possible.  We do not share every experience,
>>> so as you claim no such experience is possible because you've never
>>> experienced it, I will continue to state that it is possible because I have
>>> had such experiences.  I didn't experience it as chaos, but then the
>>> experiences were not more than a few minutes.  I was present and felt
>>> no panic.  Actually I felt elated.
>>>
>>> I offered the wiki-quote only to validate that it is a documented experience.
>>> I found it named in the Nonduality book, and as silly as it seems I was very
>>> relieved to see it named.  What is it about naming that makes experience
>>> more real?  Anyway, the wiki-quote was not the experience but some kind
>>> explanation.  I will not even try to collaborate what Conze said.  I'd describe
>>> it as seeing without something seen, without differentiation, without concepts.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure where the comparison with "not this, not that" came from, but
>>> for me 'not this, not that' is a reminder that below the patterns there is a
>>> fundamental unity.
>>>
>>> In your post to Mark, you wrote:
>>>
>>> "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."
>>>
>>> One does not have to heed those pattern threads.  One can see without
>>> the pattern (habit) recognition.
>>>
>>> I am not going to say anymore because there really nothing to be said.
>>> BUT, such experiences are possible, even for nobody special.
>>>
>>>
>> [Mark]
>> Ahhh, there is so much to be said, and so little time.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>> 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
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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
>