[MD] First Division 2.0

[118]

Marsha,
No.
Mark

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Feb 27, 2012, at 7:38 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> You seem to offer the justification of it's whatever you think.  Is that your "first principle"?   
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 10:18 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>> Mark
>> 
>> On Feb 26, 2012, at 11:55 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Mark,
>>> 
>>> On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:48 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Well Marsha,
>>>> Logic always points to something beyond, else wise we would be stuck
>>>> in a static world.  So I am glad you say that, for that is RMP's
>>>> intention as it is mine.
>>> 
>>> Words, in general, always point to something beyond, so what are you trying to say?
>> 
>> That your statement was redundant.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> I am not sure what you mean by "incoherent logic", any logic which is
>>>> not understood is incoherent, and therefore not logic.  I find Watts
>>>> to be quite coherent.  He does not necessarily mean what he writes,
>>>> though so one cannot take him literally.  
>>> 
>>> How do you know he does not necessarily mean what he writes?  Have you been contacting the dead or are you claiming to be an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient mind-reader, again?
>>> 
>> I can tell by listening to his lectures.
>>> 
>>>> This is why it is better to
>>>> listen.  Pasages that are meant to be sarcastic or ironic are
>>>> understood in a different way.  I you only read Watts, you will never
>>>> see what he means, only what you want him to mean.  The spoken word
>>>> brings things to life in a different way than the written word.  The
>>>> life you bring into Watts' words by reading them is simply your own
>>>> reflection.  It has nothing to do with Watts.
>>> 
>>> If this is what you think, than this is what you think.  But how do you know?  
>> 
>> I do not know through my intellect.  That is how I know.
>>> 
>>> WBAI once played days of Watts tapes as part of a listener fund-drive.  Do you think it is other than your own hearing consciousness that interprets Watts' words?  Do you think you've missed the meaning of ZAMM and LILA and the SODV paper, and the LC & Copleston annotations because RMP didn't read them personally?  
>> 
>> I would say that we miss a lot by just reading them.  Don't you think you would learn more by listening to RMP, like Dan did?
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Who ever said anything about truth?  Watts claimed to be an
>>>> entertainer!  Is a musician presenting Truth?  
>>> 
>>> Are you confusing "truth" for "Truth"?  Because I made no mention of "Truth".  Dynamic Quality is undefinable, unknowable and undividable: indeterminate.   Though it can be experienced.   
>> 
>> No I am not confusing them.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Please, get on the MoQ bandwagon of Quality.  
>>> 
>>> I am a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent static patterns of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality.  Who is there to get on or off a MoQ bandwagon?
>> 
>> You mind, my dear.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> The body knows the truth, but the brain
>>>> certainly does not, it creates truth.  Hopefully you know what you
>>>> create.
>>> 
>>> The body, the brain and the bandwagon can be extremely interesting and useful analogies, but they are still merely static patterns of value.  Understanding this allows room for the spontaneous to be experienced, there are no exceptions, though some patterns are better than others.  
>> 
>> No, only the words and concepts are.  You are stuck in your representation of patterns.  Let go of that.  That understanding is static.  Move on.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
> 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