[MD] The first cut.

[MarshaV]

Mark,

What you think is what you think.  


Marsha



Sent from my iPad

On Jan 23, 2012, at 7:17 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> 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