[MD] Good Mystic, Good Mystic

[118]

WARNING!! This post may bother some of those who are faint of intellect.

Hi Marsha,
For me, it is a matter of how one looks at something.  Understanding
should be expansive and not confining.  Once we place value on a
certain manner of looking at existence, we detract from it.  This is,
of course, the nature of SQ.  I like your idea of holding a dynamic
and a static position at the same time.  The effort could be made in
balancing these two in the "best" way.  That is not insanity, that is
just practicality.

I have not read Paul Turner, but given the support he is getting from
some misguided participants in this forum, I am sure I would see it as
"quite wrong".  Perhaps it is the same old clever twisting of logic,
perhaps not.  Maybe it is from a spiritual rational point of view.
However, I do not see much of that in this forum, so probably not.  I
don't think anyone even knows what that means (except Pirsig, of
course).

Hope he doesn't get his knickers in a twist.

All my humble opinion, of course, which is based on no real reason.
It is just a hunch :-)

Cheers,
Mark

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:40 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Gee, I've been thinking of considering 'hypothetical' an analogy, an analogy all the way down: not this, not that!  BUT maybe this is to hold a Dynamic position and a static position at the same time - to be  i-n-s-a-n-e.  OR maybe Paul Turner will offer a better explanation through his two-thesis position.  I like my two-ways of looking at static (patterned) value, but I am very open to 'considering' what PT has to offer.
>
>
> Cheerfully yours,
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2012, at 10:06 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Marsha,
>> I fully understand.  As a scientist I also treat everything as hypothetical.  That is the scientific method.  I interpret what I envision in the most useful manner knowing that interpretations always change.
>>
>> My suggestion was to hold your hypothetical as hypothetical.  You will not always consider your view as hypothetical.  It is the most useful to you right now.  This too shall pass.
>>
>> Enjoy your hypothetical, it will get you beyond it.  There is nothing I can tell you, you need to create it on your own.  Just treat what I write as hypothetical, if that works for you.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2012, at 10:51 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Mark,
>>>
>>> I am not insisting, nor even suggesting, that you, or David, adopt my position, but I find holding patterns as hypothetical is conducive to an open, inquiring mind.
>>>
>>>
>>> Marsha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 21, 2012, at 9:54 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Marsha,
>>>> I am glad you find freedom in uncertainty.  "Holding patterns as
>>>> hypothetical" AS hypothetical, suggests that you can move away from
>>>> that form of understanding.  The way to move away would be to NOT hold
>>>> patterns as hypothetical.  However, there is an alternative as
>>>> presented in my second paragraph.  At the root of your statement is
>>>> the indication that a degree of uncertainty is necessary to progress.
>>>> However, even uncertainty would become hypothetical bringing in the
>>>> possibility of certainty.  While this idea may seem like a paradox
>>>> (which it is), it can be very revealing upon contemplation.
>>>>
>>>> By questioning the very basis of your knowledge, you imply that there
>>>> is the "non-hypothetical".  This would follow since "the hypothetical"
>>>> suggests that there is the "non-hypothetical" (in order for the terms
>>>> "hypothetical" to mean something).  Where you then find yourself is
>>>> interesting and can become a basis for an appreciation of existence.
>>>> By your technique, one can turn away from the idea of coming in
>>>> contact with such "non-hypothetical", and turn instead to the
>>>> "creative notion" of existence.  This would entail surmising that
>>>> there is no "non-hypothetical" and instead the appreciation of
>>>> existence as creative.  When we create a painting, it replaces the
>>>> "nothing" that was once there.  The same can be said for each moment
>>>> of existence.  Quality "seeps through" in every instant resulting in
>>>> an entirely "new thing" at each moment.
>>>>
>>>> Pondering on existence in this fashion can also bring about great
>>>> freedom.  It also places a degree of personal responsibility on what
>>>> one creates at every moment.  Since most of one's existence is without
>>>> forethought, one then can "realize" that one is"tapping into" a much
>>>> deeper region of one's ability.  This region can be denoted as DQ.
>>>> That we "realize things does not mean that we come in contact with
>>>> something that we have found, but that we have created it.  This would
>>>> bring in the idealist notion of "the world as idea".
>>>>
>>>> Hope this makes sense, but probably not.  At least I tried.
>>>>
>>>> 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