[MD] lila's soliloquy

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Mark, Marsha

Sorry for posting a short one. I try to not do that often. But I think 
all Marsha's answers here are good. She's not making any mistakes that I 
know of. Again, sentences like:

"Static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality, Dynamic Quality is not other than static quality."

I'd say a slightly different thing: "Static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality, static quality is not same as Dynamic Quality" for clarity. But that's just minor tweaking.

What I ecspecially like in these answers is that they are very compact, yet the point is clear.


-Tuukka



28.3.2012 11:27, MarshaV wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2012, at 11:16 PM, 118<ununoctiums at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Hi Marsha,
>> This makes sense to me.  For you is thinking just static or does it have a dynamic component?
> I cannot give an either/or answer.  Static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality, Dynamic Quality is not other than static quality.
>
>
>> For me, most of thinking is following DQ, it is only when we "objectivize" it for the purposes of exchange (words) that it is temporarily static.  Our thinking is much more than words.
> I might say patterns, even intellectual patterns, are much more than words.  And I might say that human experience is much more than concepts and percepts.  My definition of self/no-self includes Dynamic Quality.
>
>
>> An analogy would be to create value into an object through money.  The value itself is not money, but we temporarily objectivize it with money.  Once we obtain something of value, the money is not important.  At least in theory.
> Hmmm. It might be a workable theory.
>
>
>> We follow DQ whether we like it or not, the point is to realize this and revel in it.  This is Zen, in my opinion.
> I don't know.
>
>
>> It is simply a realization, and as such it is "nothing much", yet it is everything.
> Yes, I cannot disagree with this statement.  But knowing bikes can be ridden is not the same as knowing the experience of riding a bike.
>
>
>> Enlightenment is realization, nothing changes.  We follow DQ, and isn't it wonderful!!
> Hmmmmmmmm.
>
>
>
>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>> Mark
> Marsha
>
>
>
>> On Mar 27, 2012, at 6:20 PM, MarshaV<valkyr at att.net>  wrote:
>>
>>> It's not "whatever you like", but "whatever you think".  First with your question you create a world (and self) in time and space, and then you are bound to search and create answers containing causes and conditions and components to populate, explain and define it.  Those causes, conditions and components (bits and pieces of pattern) that work best in your present become
>>> reality.  But again I'd like to stress I have never said "whatever you like", but "whatever you think".  Lila is pointing to the thought-trap that represents the static (conventional) point-of-view.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>