[MD] The first cut.

[118]

Hi Marsha,
I do not place the concept of patterns above Self.  This is demeaning in my view.  Patterns are just an intellectual construct, and we are more than just intellect in my view.

Oh, and in my garage it is Ormus.  Google it.

Cheers,

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Jan 23, 2012, at 9:56 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> 
> Mark,
> 
> In my understanding there is no homunculus to be a mystic.  As I have stated many times before, it is my understanding that within the MoQ, the  
> “self” is a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent and conceptualized static patterns of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality. 
> 
> So how could someone BE a mystic?  Maybe by Dave Harding's pronouncement?  I don't think so.  BUt fhow about you?  What kind of transformation are you working towards in your garage?  
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 12:45 PM, 118 wrote:
> 
>> Marsha,
>> You CAN be a mystic if you want to.  It simply takes effort.  Look to
>> Buddhist training.
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>> 
>> On 1/23/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dave,
>>> 
>>> I am not a mystic.  And on what basis, other some a trumped up conceptual
>>> construct, do you call me such a thing?  You're full of baloney...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marsha
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>> On Jan 23, 2012, at 8:27 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Andre,
>>>> 
>>>> Why do you call Marsha names such as an 'eel in the bucket'? I get that
>>>> she is frustrating because she doesn't want to accept that sq is old,
>>>> fixed and complex.  But she is right in the end no? Ultimately things
>>>> aren't static.  I call her a Mystic because I try and point out that a
>>>> person who denies they are ruining the undefinable ultimate reality with
>>>> fixed definitions, is still defining. They are called Mystics. But they're
>>>> not wrong.
>>>> 
>>>> The Metaphysics of Quality expands our mystical understanding of the
>>>> universe.  It isn't in direct opposition to it.
>>>> 
>>>> Curiously,
>>>> 
>>>> -David.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 23/01/2012, at 6:15 AM, Andre wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Marsha to Andre:
>>>>> 
>>>>> whatever...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Andre:
>>>>> Brilliant Marsha...absolutely/relatively brilliant!!! The typical
>>>>> response of an eel in the bucket.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> hives.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