[MD] NYC

MarshaV valkyr at att.net
Thu Jan 5 00:50:34 PST 2012 

Hello,

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 4, 2012, at 1:52 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Marsha,
> My relativity statement was a joke.  Why so serious?  How do you assign value in a relative framework?




> 
> If something is high in value to you, what does that mean in a relative framework?  It can't be relative to you, since it is you I am asking about.  I do not know what you mean by high value, relative to what?  Low value?  Well I figured as much...
> 
> Cheers and good luck with that.  Since you do not exist, I guess it is not your responsibility to figure it out.  Maybe a cause will come around to create you understanding.  I guess you will just have to wait and see.  Hope it is not a tsunami!
> 
> Thanks for letting me know your opinion of me, it is high value to me.
> 
> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
> Mark
> 
> On Jan 3, 2012, at 10:56 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>> Conventional knowledge, static patterns of value are relative.  Yes.   But that doesn't preclude assigning value judgements to experience.  I find the quote from RMP, based on my experience, to be quite high in value.  And I find the direct perceptions of NYC more valuable than the conceptual imaginings of what someone else has written in a book about NYC.  
>> 
>> But:
>> 
>> "The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of quality is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static patterns are different for everyone because each person has a different static pattern of life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns influence his final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual value judgments but not complete uniformity."   
>>    (RMP, SODV)
>> 
>> Viva la difference!
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On Jan 4, 2012, at 12:58 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Marsha,
>>> I respectfully disagree.  It is all relative anyway, isn't it?  So I give in.
>>> 
>>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> On Jan 3, 2012, at 3:35 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 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 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