[MD] X = no-self

[MarshaV]

Hi Tim,

I'm just going to delete away all the sections where the questions are 
rhetorical or where there is no question at all.

> 
> [Tim]
> What was it, 'Matz'?

Marsha:
Motz.  I don't know where the spelling came from.  


>  what's wrong with John being a woman named Sally? 

Marsha:
Nothing is wrong with wrong with John being a woman named 
Sally.  I didn't say there was.  


> Is it all you, or is there more?

Marsha:
I don't know what I don't know.  



>> 
> 
> [Tim]
> I think that RMP was not trying to obliterate the conventional, but just
> to state that we can't close the door that tight!  I think that you have
> closed the door tight, and that you would be happier if you opened it a
> crack.

Marsha:
I agree with this.   


> but, what you really think - which I did want to know (Thanks!): "John
> exists as a ... [x]" - A.  B: Marsha exists as a ... [x].  So, I ask: is
> there only just one 'x'?  I though it was DQ that was one.  Is it that x
> = x?  or is it that x not-= x?  (Or a fourth option?)  Is it that there
> is x1 = John, and x2 = Marsha?

Marsha:
Do not compute...  



> 
> [Tim]
> 'have' was your word.  And I don't see how it relates to my question: do
> you believe that there is pattern outside of Marsha?

Marsha:
I don't know.   


>> Marsha:
>> If you are asking if I believe there are patterns other than the ones
>> I've 
>> been exposed to, the answer is yes.  But to believe that they exist would 
>> be just another pattern.
> 
> [Tim]
> well, this was what I was looking for...  but it doesn't satisfy...  Do
> you believe that there are patterns to which you cannot be exposed?! 
> I'm really happy with that question!

Marsha:
Believe?  Sure.  


>>> [Tim]
>>> IF you don't believe in proprietary individuals you will have to think
>>> that you can attain another's perspective - or if not you, at least it
>>> is not theoretically impossible for someone.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> I don't understand this statement.
> 
> [Tim]
> thanks for your honesty.  I think I have expressed myself above in a way
> that might make it comprehensible:
> 
> Do you believe that there are patterns to which you cannot be exposed?!
> 
>> 
>>> [Tim]
>>> Third: to be sure, the idea of an accomplished yogi or genius is not
>>> fantastical to you, right?
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> There does seem to be patterns that such entities exist.  They're static 
>> patterns of value.
> 
> [Tim]
> really?  ahhh,  I see, you don't believe the entities exist, but you
> recognize a pattern that such entities exist. ... maybe I understand
> that?

Marsha:
Good.  

--- 

I've agree with the Buddhist concept of anatta.  That the self is a composite 
of aggregates: form (the body), feelings, perception, mental formations (volition, desire,
emotions), and consciousness - patterns.  None of these patterns independently 
exist.  That's why I meditate; to see for myself.  

If I've missed any of your questions please let me know.

And if you'd like to present your "one idea and question" I will surely give it some 
consideration?  

I hope additional progress has been made.  


Marsha





 
___