[MD] NYC

118 ununoctiums at gmail.com
Thu Jan 5 11:19:03 PST 2012 

Hi,
Are you in NYC?
Mark

On 1/5/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> 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
> 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