[MD] Democritus and MoQ

[118]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:04 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> To be fair to Mr. Loy's writing, that was the section's opening
> paragraph, and not its conclusion.
>
> Your posts once seemed frustratingly contradictory, now they seem
> comfortably paradoxical.
>
>
> Marsha

Well, thanks Marsha (I think).  I feel that I am consistent, but I
suppose it may not appear that way.  My path is simply to create the
most positive and enticing reality I can.  (Gee isn't that just nice).
 I really have no idea, except that it is a creation, especially the
metaphysics part.  Some people choose endless cycles with Karma,
others choose an endless nothingness for a long long time, that is,
forever.  Whatever you want.  That is not to say that the
existentialist estrangement cannot be fun too.  Just look at Camus,
who lived life to the full until it ended with him hitting a tree with
someone who was driving too fast, I suppose.  There is of course also
Alan Watts, with all that Eastern philosophy, who died possibly
because he drank too much fire water.  But, he could be back amongst
us right now, just with a different body and brain, starting all over
again, experiencing what the new life is giving him.

We perhaps only have control over our attitudes.  But that is a lot.

Cheers,
Mark
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2011, at 11:56 PM, 118 wrote:
>
>> Hi Marsha,
>> Thanks for the quote.  For me, this points to the goal oriented West.
>> We get that from birth, "if you do this, you get that".  It seems that
>> many people trudge through life waiting for the weekends or the next
>> payday, saving all their money for the big trip, or playing the lotto.
>>
>> I don't see spirituality as an object of desire.  For me it is more of
>> a path.  We can be on it, and get off it anytime only to return.  I
>> truly do not think that there is a "right" way of looking at
>> something, except that it is right for the individual.  Spirituality
>> is a creation just like science.  We find that which has meaning and
>> step into the path.  There is no doubt that there are signs
>> everywhere, it all depends how one interprets them.  I believe most of
>> them are around to guide and help, just have to see them that way.  So
>> the goal is not unobtainable, one can obtain it everyday.  It's not if
>> you win or lose, it's how you play the game.
>>
>> And thanks for the praise, but it is how you read my posts, not what I say.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:17 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Mark,
>>>
>>> I hope I may be allowed another quote:
>>>
>>> "When we want something, normally we know well enough what needs to be done to get it.  But what if the object I desire is something that can never become an object, because it is prior to the subject-object dichotomy?  What if it can never be an effect, because it is always unconditioned?  What if it can never be gained, because it is unattainable?  Then I find myself in a dilemma.  If I make no effort to do anything, it seems that the result will also be nothing and there will be no progress toward the desired goal.  But to the extent that I exert myself to attain it, I don't, for in this case all effort seems to be self-defeating.  This is the paradox of spiritual practice, for as we have seen, atman, Brahman, nirvana, Buddha-nature, [Quality, of course], and so on, are unobjectionable (because nondual), unoriginated (beyond causal and temporal relations), and hence unobtainable.  How can we escape this double bind?"
>>>      (Loy, David, 'Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy',p.238)
>>>
>>> I do love a good book.  And I am also more and more enjoying your posts.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Marsha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2011, at 10:54 PM, 118 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Marsha,
>>>>
>>>> A while back I proposed that once Pirsig had written ZMM, he no longer
>>>> had much control over what the character would be.  In fact, by
>>>> writing, he relinquished all control.  Therefore, placing quotes from
>>>> Pirsig concerning Phaedrus, really carry no weight.  Of course, I was
>>>> met with disdain and contempt for this concept.  In fact, when I
>>>> proposed that I could perhaps interpret ZMM and Lila in a way
>>>> different from some, this was also met with incredulity.  Any good
>>>> book has multiple interpretations, and nobody has rights to the
>>>> correct interpretation.  There are some that want to wind MoQ up like
>>>> a watch and watch it tick away.  For me, they are the ones who prevent
>>>> its progress.  But you know all this, and have your own
>>>> interpretation.
>>>>
>>>> There is no reason why we cannot modernize a quote from Democritus to
>>>> help elaborate on MoQ.  Chance and necessity: Static and Dynamic
>>>> Quality.  Perhaps it is too simple to be true.  Let's throw up some
>>>> smoke screens to make Quality much more complicated why don't we.  We
>>>> all know what Quality is, the problem lies where we try to use the
>>>> intellect to inscribe it.  Pesky intellect, seems to always get in the
>>>> way of awakening and awareness.  Let's tie Quality down like a
>>>> tethered hot air balloon.  Must be possible.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>> 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
>