[MD] Marsha is a mystic.

[MarshaV]

David,

You are addressing Mark's post not mine.  

But for good measure:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtTzipFWuKk  


Marsha
 


On Jan 22, 2012, at 7:56 AM, David Harding wrote:

> Hi Marsha and all,
> 
> Aha the real Marsha!
> 
> I've said it before and I'll say it again.
> 
> Marsha is a mystic. Her ode to mysticism(DQ) below is a fundamental
> part of the MOQ. Life, as with the MOQ, is all about perspective.
> Ultimately "There is no need to add anything to DQ, so why should we?
> Why try to imagine things that it does? ". I couldn't put it better
> myself.
> 
> But there is another perspective that Marsha neglects. I would dare to
> say she doesn't like it one bit.. And who would? Its static quality.
> It doesn't represent Vibrance and newness. It is old and complex. It
> represents pain and suffering and death.  Who would like that? Why
> should our worldview have such a horrible concept?
> 
> But I would argue that we can't avoid this pain and oldness and
> suffering. To pretend otherwise is to live a false life.
> 
> "Purity identified ceased to be purity." -RMP Lila
> 
> Not Marsha, not me not even the best Mystics there are - The Zen
> Buddhists - can escape this fact. Marsha is polluting the world with
> her static ideas just like everyone else.
> 
> Marsha claims to accept that static patterns exist but she does so
> only in so far as it "is a reference term.. leave it at that." In
> other words: "Sq simply represents DQ. End of discussion."
> 
> I don't disagree with you Marsha. Ultimately sq does 'represent' DQ.
> But my point is we cannot leave it at that.  There isn't a person on
> this planet or thing in existence which has 'left it at that'.  sq,
> being a fixed thing, can never capture DQ. It never gets it right. So
> sq goes on and on and on. All pollution every last bit of it. Wouldn't
> it be great if we didn't pollute? No, then there would be no life.
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> On 22/01/2012, at 6:47 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Andre,
>> Well, I agree with you, DQ is.  I also believe that of much more.  I
>> would state that a Tree simply is too.  Why try to look deeper when
>> the tree is there in front of you.  We have a tendency to slice and
>> dice everything up.  I would also say the sq simply is.  There is no
>> need to go any farther and confuse the issue.  sq is a reference term,
>> let's leave it at that.  This will certainly save us from all the
>> contortions.  There is no need to add anything to DQ, so why should
>> we?  Why try to imagine things that it does?  It does not do things,
>> it is simply a reference term.  To say that it does something is
>> giving it attributes that it cannot have.  Once we have accepted that
>> DQ simply is, we are free from the metaphysics associated with it!
>> 
>> I also agree that Quality comes first.  In fact, we should not even
>> say that, because Quality simply is.  It does not come before
>> anything.  Quality comes first and after, and there is nothing else!
>> We cannot say that Quality is distinct from something else.  We cannot
>> say that Quality acts on something else, for what is that something
>> else.  It would require a whole separate world that is distinct from
>> Quality.
>> 
>> So yes, I am with you that DQ simply is.  Why do people make such a
>> fuss about that and everything else.  We should let DQ be, and not try
>> to make more of it than that.  How often do you try to make more out
>> of the white page that is behind the words written on it?  Never, I
>> would say, (unless it gets a coffee stain on it, but then that is not
>> the white page anymore).  The split between sq and DQ is not possible
>> since it would give DQ a distinction it should not have.  By making it
>> distinct (from sq) we are stating things that "it is not", and in this
>> way we are defining it.  This of course would not make sense.  How do
>> you define the color of the wind?
>> 
>> Thanks Andre, I think you are right on this one.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>> 
>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Andre <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Joe to Dave and All:
>>> 
>>> I image DQ as the description of indefinable evolutionary reality perceived
>>> emotionally.
>>> 
>>> Andre:
>>> No Joe, DQ is not a 'description' of anything. DQ simply is. In the MOQ DQ
>>> is a reference term.
>>> 
>>> Joe:
>>> Is there no variation to levels in the indefinable emotional perception of
>>> evolutionary existence?
>>> 
>>> Andre:
>>> If there is, according to you, an 'indefinable emotional perception of
>>> evolutionary existence' how can there be any 'variation'? How can something
>>> undefined be variable?
>>> 
>>> Further more, your phrase 'emotional perception' is strange to me (and I
>>> have said this before). Think about this phrasing carefully... . Despite
>>> what your assertions are; emotions are a biological response to quality and
>>> not quality itself. This is straightforward MOQ understanding.
>>> Emotions do not perceive directly, they respond and I even grant that they
>>> respond sometimes before perception. BUT they are not primary. There is
>>> Quality first.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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


 
___