[MD] NYC

118 ununoctiums at gmail.com
Wed Jan 4 10:41:22 PST 2012 

Hi Marsha,
This is because you live within a relative framework and I do not.  It makes it hard for us to communicate.  I have a hard time fathoming what relativity you are working out of.  It also explains why you do not find value in my posts.  The difference is yours due to your relativity approach.  Can't help you with that.  What reality are you eating today?

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Jan 3, 2012, at 11:03 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Mark,
> 
> I don't find much of what you write about Buddhism credible, and it is mostly presented without context also, but then there are suppose to be 17 major schools of Buddhism, all of the different to some degree.  
> 
> Disagree away...  I am not trying to inflict agreement.
> 
> Viva la difference!
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Jan 4, 2012, at 1:01 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I disagree with the quote you present also, it is out of context or I simply disagree with Pirsig.  I agree with Buddhism on this one instead.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>> Mark
>> 
>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:44 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Mark,
>>> 
>>> As you well understand, I was stating that the direct perceptions from moseying down Broadway, rather than the second-hand conceptualizations gleaned from reading a book, are a more direct experience of New York City.
>>> 
>>> And:
>>> 
>>> "This direct perception of pure Dynamic Quality without any intellectual mediation is the same as the goal of Buddhism known as ‘awakening’ or ‘enlightenment’. (Pirsig, 1994)"
>>>    (The MoQ Textbook)
>>> 
>>> Please note:  "without any intellectual mediation".
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:12 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Everything is direct experience because it happens in the present.  Forming or remembering a concept is about as direct as it gets, since it can only happen right Now.  To think otherwise is just pretending that it is not and that somehow we can separate ourselves from direct perception.  I tell you it is impossible.  The two truths are an illusion.  Mindfulness can help one realize that.  In the meantime you are just fooling yourself.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jan 1, 2012, at 9:15 PM, MarshaV wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 'Reading about' is second-hand constructed experience of NYC, rather than the seeing, hearing, smelling, touching & tasting aspects of NYC directly.  But maybe you would like to explain "direct experience" as you are using the term.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Jan 1, 2012, at 5:59 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes, of course there is a difference, but neither is "direct experience" as you are using the term.  Unless you accept that reading something with your eyes is direct experience.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Dec 31, 2011, at 12:28 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I never used the word "real", so I assume that most of what you've written here is written to what you've conceptually projected I wrote rather than what I wrote.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> If you've never practiced mindfulness or meditation, your opinion about Zen or living in DQ means very little to me.  
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Yes, there is a difference between second-hand experiencing NYC by reading about it while sitting on a beach in Santa Barbara and the direct sensual experience of seeing the sights, smelling the aromas, tasting a NYC bagel, bumping into and avoiding bumping into others travelers, and hearing the many sounds while moseying down Broadway from 42 Street to SoHo, for instance.  
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Marsha 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 30, 2011, at 2:54 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I agree with Carl.  Marsha seems to be distinguishing between seeing with the eyes and reading about in books.  On analysis, I do not perceive much difference.  In both cases concepts are formed, and neither can be considered "directly perceiving".  We form concepts because that is our human perception.  If we say that such perception is not real then we must say that what we do is not real.  Where does that leave us?  We must then disown our selves as imaginary.  Going down this path leads to nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The act of forming a concept is DQ, pure and simple.  The act of understanding a concept is living in DQ.  This is standard Zen in my opinion.  To somehow distance ourselves from DQ is where the problem lies.  It is this distancing that is imaginary.  It can not happen.  So long as we live in the illusion that what we do with our minds is somehow secondary to the real thing, we keep searching for something more, something hidden.  This conscious separation from reality is what Zen seeks to correct.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> If this right here is not enough, then we are "suffering" to use a Buddhist term.  Once it is perceived that we live directly in Quality everything else falls in place.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Seeing NY is just as real as hearing about it.  The former is obviously more full; it has higher Quality.  Unless you get mugged of course.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>>>>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 29, 2011, at 7:15 PM, "Carl Thames" <cthames at centurytel.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Marsha:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps we have never been to NYC. We can study all about NYC, look at photographs, read the history, and learn a tremendous amount about NYC from books. Far more than the people who live and/or work in NYC know. We can be experts. But, when we board an airplane and fly to NYC, there is a great difference when we experience NYC with our eyes, our ears and other senses. Then we understand so much more, don't we? Because we have the direct experience of our senses and not just the mental image of NYC, even though the latter is correct.  Direct perception is to see things as they are, without changing them through our concepts.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Carl:
>>>>>>>>>>> I think that seeing them through our concepts is the only way they're meaningful to us, so that whatever we perceive is through our own filter. This is why two artists can paint the same scene and come away with two totally different paintings.  The basic data is identical, but the perception is not.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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
> 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

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list