[MD] truth, again

[MarshaV]

Hi Mark,

I am not trying to be present confusion and am not one to suggest a koan to anyone else, but maybe my explanation represents a type of personal working koan.  Here is a quote by David Bohm that perfectly represents how I consider the Buddhist's conventional (relative) reality, or static reality:  

"Reality is what we take to be true.  What we take to be true is what we
believe.  What we believe is based upon our perceptions.  What we perceive
depends upon what we look for.  What we look for depends on what we think.
What we think depends on what we perceive.  What we perceive determines
what we believe.  What we believe determines what we take to be true.  What
we take to be true is our reality."

     (Mathieu Ricard & Trinh Xuan Thuan, 'The Quantum and the Lotus: A
   Journey to the Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism Meet',p.121) 
 

Marsha 



On Dec 8, 2012, at 12:08 AM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> I find it difficult to find the Ultimate Real through your objectification of DQ.  I don't see how it can be those things you say it is.  It doesn't make sense to me.  Perhaps it is because I approach it in a different way, without all those things that it has to be.
> 
> I can analogize DQ in many ways, but not how you do.  I am not sure how we would know if it were unknowable.  I suppose it could not exist, but you say it does exist as some thing, like undifferentiated.  Maybe I don't know what you mean by that.  It seems to me that it is we who create the differentiated.  That is what it means to me to be aware.  We must be aware OF something.  Perhaps your logic says that DQ is what it was like before we were born.  What did our face look like before we were born?  (Yes, that is a koan that has led some to enlightenment according to history).  If you are suggesting a koan, that's pretty cool.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Dec 6, 2012, at 9:51 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> That which is without value does not exist, so yes your opinion has value.  I find everyone's opinion different and interesting.  The Ultimate Real, DQ, being indivisible, undefinable and unknowable, makes there no-thing to be found, though such may be realized/experienced.  I cannot say that there is a _we_ that _creates_ something.  What I might suggest is that there seems to be a creative interdependence between value and consciousness.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 6, 2012, at 6:31 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> All I have is my opinion, and it goes as such:
>>> The idea of the Ultimately Real comes from an approach that there is something to find.  This is a scientific approach which is commensurate with our age of objectivity.
>>> 
>>> The approach of Quality, as I see it, is that such ultimate seeking is the wrong approach.  Within Quality, one does not search for a basis to reality, rather one creates a manner of interpretation which is more meaningful.  Such meaning does not come from the creation of an ultimate cause, but from the creation of the explanation of the creative present.  In this we all participate and therefore objective distinctions are secondary, or the result of, personal creation.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps my opinion is of some value to you.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> On Dec 5, 2012, at 9:31 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>> 
>>>> The last thing I might want to do is beg a question, especially from you, for I often have difficulty answering my own questions and your questions seem like tongue twisters.  What is Ultimately Real versus what is real as patterned value, and are they really separate and really real?  Good questions, and I could spend hours, days, weeks and dreams trying to find a good answer, and wondering what is good, ...  
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 5, 2012, at 6:00 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Marsha,
>>>>> That is a good understanding as far as I am concerned.  It does beg the question as to what we mean by real.  It seems to me that we participate in the creation of the real.  The real can therefore not be held objectively at arms length.  Through the creation of knowledge we can create ontology.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The only reason we cannot create ontology and keep it indeterminate, is that is what we want.  What you suggest is what others suggest, and that is to not discuss the nature of Quality.  This goes against what MoQ is for, in my opinion.  I am not sure why everybody is afraid to discuss Quality (create ontology).   Perhaps they lack imagination.  Quality has been discussed from an ontological point of view throughout the ages.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My guess is that such people misunderstand SQ, and are afraid of it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mark
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 4, 2012, at 9:11 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is my understanding that ontology is concerned with what is fundamentally real, while epistemology is concerned with understanding what it is to have knowledge.  For me the MoQ is ontologically indeterminate (DQ), and epistemologically relativistic (sq), relative to past and present patterns of value and the dynamics of moment.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marsha
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 


 
___