[MD] Taking off the glasses?

[118]

Hi Marsha,
I know that your position is that Reality means Quality.  My question to you is what do you mean by this?  Aren't words patterns?  If, as you say, Quality is patterned/unpatterned, are not words part of reality?

I believe that the term RMP used was "fundamental reality".  This presents Reality in a Western structural sense.  Perhaps Reality in a dynamic sense should be considered.

I believe you would agree with this since you embrace the concept of dependent arising.

Mark

On Nov 13, 2011, at 11:47 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> What exactly does 'mean' mean?  
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 14, 2011, at 2:40 AM, 118 wrote:
> 
>> In response to RMP's quote below, I would have to ask: what does RMP mean by Reality?  As far as I can tell, words are part of Reality.  They are those noises we here, when we communicate ideas.  As such, words cannot cannot be separated from the fundamental nature of reality.  We act on words, and are therefore creating reality as it unfolds.  What goes on in our heads is also part of reality.  Perhaps RMP is using "reality" in a different way, that is, a subset of reality. 
>> 
>> Reality exists in the smell of a rose, as well as the recollection of that smell.  To speak of a fundamental Reality that is somehow distinct from a lecture in a classroom does not make much sense to me.  It presupposes some kind of structure on which everything else rests.  If we resort to the idea of entanglement, or dependent arising, such fundamental ground does not exist.  It would seem to me that Reality is what IS as it unfolds in the present moment.  This for me is Quality, which is an active process without fundament.  But, perhaps I am missing something.
>> 
>> As far as I am concerned, this whole life experience is mystical.  I would not know of any other way to describe it.  I have posted my opinions of words in other posts.  Suffice it to say that too much emphasis is placed on words in a day to  day setting.  We have to split things up to communicate ideas since we are not telepathic.  If we were telepathic words would not exist. We would transfer awarenesses in a more direct manner.
>> 
>> What exactly does Reality mean in MoQ?
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>> On Nov 13, 2011, at 1:38 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Oct 17, 2011, at 4:52 PM, david buchanan quoted:
>>> 
>>>> RMP: 
>>>> "Some of the most honored philosophers in history have been mystics: Plotinus, Swedenborg, Loyola, Shankaracharya and many others. They share a common belief that the fundamental nature of reality is outside language; that language splits things up into parts while the true nature of reality is undivided. Zen, which is a mystic religion, argues that the illusion of dividedness can be overcome by meditation. The Native American Church argues that peyote can force-feed a mystic understanding upon those who were normally resistant to it,..." (LILA, ch 5)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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