[MD] Metaphysics and the mystic.

[MarshaV]

Oooops, didn't see the statements below.  

 

On Feb 5, 2012, at 12:25 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Greetings Ms Subborn,
> 
> Well you are a hard nut to crack.  There must be a lot of history
> there.  For that I congratulate you, a full life indeed.  But there
> comes a time in life when we leave that all behind.  That time will
> come for you, maybe just a minute before you die, but it will come.
> Be patient, and never stop asking.
> 
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 2:18 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Greetings Our Father,
>> 
>> On Feb 5, 2012, at 1:45 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Marsha,
>>> There is plenty to say about it.  You just have to find the words.
>> 
>> There might be plenty to say, but the point is mindfulness is experience without the narration (old news).
> 
> No that is not the point of mindfulness.  That is why it is called
> Mind-fulness.  Don't confuse that with experience.

There is an interdependence between mind and experience. 


>> 
>>> Who is watching the stream of thoughts that you present below?
>> 
>> I am not aware of any watcher.  There is watching.
> 
> Well this is then a matter of semantics.  I am fine with watching
> without a watcher, if that has meaning to you.  Yes, there is watching
> indeed.
>> 
>> 
>>> Certainly it is not the thoughts watching themselves, is it?  Just dig
>>> a little deeper, you may be almost there.  Of course you cannot watch
>>> the watcher, but what difference does that make?
>> 
>> Within the state of mindfulness, mindfulness stands on its own; why project and speculate beyond the experience?  Ham may require a "primary source", and maybe you do too, but I am content not to go in that direction.
> 
> Stands on its own?  I suppose this could be a fundamental truth for
> you, but it is simply an intellectual distraction to keep you from
> Being.

Which statement have I made that is not a conceptual construction?  None.  


>  So Mindfulness is Ham's Essence?  OK, I can buy that.  The
> fundamental ground.  Yes, you have something there, run with it!  That
> you do not need to create anything in addition to that is fine by me
> too.  This forum is for the creative, not the passive.

Now who's playing semantic games.  My statement is that I do not feel the same needs as Ham.  So There is not there there to run with.


>> 
>> 
>>> Do you need to watch something to know it is there?  Do you need to watch Love to make it
>>> real?
>> 
>> I may experience, indeed, experience love, but without the need to measure and define (conceptualize) the experience.
> 
> What do you mean "I"?  I thought that did not exist.  How can you
> experience anything?  You do not exist.  What do you think
> conceptualization is except experience.  

It is experience;  I agree.  But it is past more likely past explanations overlaid onto the present experience.


> It happens to you while you
> think.  If you prefer not to think, then perhaps you will be peaceful.
> But it certainly does dismiss a wonderful part of being human.  

I have dismissed nothing at all.  


> So,
> my dear go forth and multiply, I am sure there are many others who
> feel like you.  All you need is a logo and a motto.  How about "Kill
> all intellectual experiences, Kill them completely"?  Return to the
> womb, it is nice and quiet in there, you need not suffer anymore,
> there is a refuge which you can hide in.

You're being ridiculous.  I am dismissing nothing.


> This is a forum for conceptualizing experiences, not for annihilating
> them.  You won't find many takers around here.  Singing to the wind.

Should I present my definition of static patterns of value again?  Or my definition of 'self' within the MoQ?  Or maybe my definition of the intellectual level?   (Ooops, been bared from doing that, so never mind.)  If I was not interested in conceptualizing experience, I wouldn't bother looking for a clearer definition.  You are whistling into the wind.  


>>> Let go, just a little.  It is right there beside you.  You don't need
>>> to look at it directly to prove to yourself that it exists.  It is the
>>> screen on which all this movie is being played.  If a movie did not
>>> have a screen, we sure could not see the movie.  If life was not
>>> played on something, we would not be aware of being alive.
>> 
>> What?  Consciousness?  Quality?  Just as the Buddhist say that 'form is not other than emptiness and emptiness is not other than form', for me static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality and Dynamic Quality is not other than static quality.  Or the determinate is not other than the indeterminate and the indeterminate is not other than the determinate.  It is this groundlessness that is the condition for a wondrous and interdependent world of experience; it is the letting go.
> 
> Yes, but you are saying that Buddha was stupid to conceptualize
> something like that.  This is something that you abhor.  Of course DQ
> and sq are something we create to provide meaning.  Were you thinking
> it was something more than that.  But we create them as different.  To
> not run with that is to never start the trip.  You are back where you
> started without MoQ.  I do not see why you want to return to pre-MoQ
> days, we just got started.  You can use all the word play you want, if
> hiding is your purpose.  Still, I do not see the point for putting
> words on the page in that case.  Perhaps this interaction gives you
> experience.  Perhaps it makes you think.  But, perhaps not.  Keep on
> convincing me that you prefer not to conceptualize, I will come around
> some time to believing you are sincere.  Just use different words.
> You are not some computer program that results in a "do loop".  That
> is just your repetitive brain that refuses anything new.  Jump in the
> water is warm.

I conceptualize all the time.  I just understand it as flow.   


> Letting go does not mean you cannot conceptualize.  What a waste of
> human existence that would be.  Perhaps you can convince others on
> this, but not on this forum, I don't think.  But keep trying, perhaps
> you can bring others to your side.  If this does not matter to you,
> then why are you telling me all these things?

I enjoy conceptualization.  Not as much as you, obviously...   


>>> Besides, it has nothing to do with "watching one's thoughts".  That
>>> sounds too intellectual. Do you spend all day watching your heart
>>> beat?  If not, then why not?  It is as much you as your brain.
>> 
>> They can be understood as two separate experiences:  meditation ("watching the thoughts") and mindfulness (experience without the self), but in all cases these words are not the experience.  There are many different introspective practices; my exposure is limited; I am far from being an expert.
> 
> Wait, are you creating a dichotomy here?  You the one who should say
> that meditation is not other than mindfulness and so on.

Never said that.  


>  Where did
> this come from.  Don't tell me that you are conceptualizing.  Three
> hail Marys will take care of that.  Don't worry, I won't tell anyone.
> Mums the word.
> 
> If you are not an expert on yourself, then keep trying to believe you
> are, because you are.  You have had plenty of time to sort all that
> "who am I" stuff.

Your puffery is amusing.  


>> 
>>>  If you
>>> did not have a mirror, would you spend all day wondering what is doing
>>> the seeing?  If you look for the "I" you will never find it, just like
>>> you cannot look for your eyes.  But that is far from convincing proof
>>> that you do not have eyes.
>> 
>> That the mind is a mirror of nature is a Cartesian metaphor.  I prefer the mirror as presenting a reflection that is wondrous, but with no additional reality apart from itself.  I am not sure how you are using the mirror metaphor.
> 
> Perhaps it is, are you saying that you are way beyond such a thing.
> What reality do you need apart from itself.  Are you suggesting that
> there is something more?  By the way, if the mirror is a reflection,
> what is it a reflection of?  Seriously, what is being reflected?  Pray
> tell, please let me know your thoughts on this.

Don't have an answer.   


> The mirror was not a metaphor.  I was saying that without actually
> looking in a mirror, you would not know how you can see.  Sure, people
> could tell you, but that is like reading the Bible.  No metaphor
> there.  How can you see?  How can you know?  How can you say "I"?

I can use the word "I" by convention.  I haven't the slightest idea what the rest of your statements mean.  I doubt that you do either.  


> Ponder on this one without running and hiding in some place of
> ignorance created by you intellectualization.  I mean this with the
> most respect.  If you prefer to stay away from these thoughts, I can
> respect that as well.  Just so that you know, I take these responses
> from you as a basic need of yours, and I am simply responding.  This
> discussion can end at any time as the ones in the past have.

Ponder on what?  




>> 
>> 
> Best regards, Namaste (the spirit in me greets the spirit in you, (if
> you believe such things, anyway))
> 
> Mark
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:40 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Mark,
>>>> 
>>>> There is a meditation technique where you watch of the stream of thoughts (bits and pieces of pattern) going through your mind without attaching to the them.  I have never been able to watch the watcher so there is nothing to say about that experience.
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> 
>>>>