[MD] The MoQ and Politics? part 1 of 3

[MarshaV]

Greetings John, 

On Jan 28, 2011, at 4:29 PM, John Carl wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> I noticed your three-part postings and it irritated me a bit.  Not at you,
> but at that which forces you to jump through such hoops.  It seems like
> harassment to me.  What is the point?  Is MD so clogged with noise that
> makes such measures necessary?

I have read John Mill's 'On Liberty.'  Maybe not everyone agrees with 
Mr. Mills.  

Meine Gedanken sind frei.     


> I don't know what you mean ay flexible line; I don't see any such thing.
>> Maybe the idea is to hold both views simultaneously.  There are two
>> truths, but they are different ways of experiencing same reality. The
>> lower truth is our common, everyday experience of things.  The higher
>> truth is understanding things (patterns) as having no essence, as being
>> impermanent and being interdependent: empty of inherent existence.
>> But I am not a Buddhist, so this is my interpretation from reading and
>> thinking about the MoQ and Buddhism.
>> 
>> 
> I guess what I mean by "flexible line" is this very aspect, when you hold
> two truths simultaneously, higher and lower, you must decide moment to
> moment which way you are going to look at any given aspect of reality - with
> your higher perspective or your lower.


When holding a coin, "must" I decide between heads or tails?   To be either/or 
bound is soooo Aristotelian.  I prefer yes, no and all of the above whenever 
possible.  


Marsha
 
___