[MD] a Zen truth

[MarshaV]

Hi Mark, 


On Sep 29, 2012, at 12:46 PM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 2:46 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi Carl,
>> 
>> Yes, I have seriously considered that Mark adopt's such a view, but it
>> _his_ view using _his_  lens and _his_ rhetoric (_his analogy_).  And _his_
>> judging others.  I need not accept or reject _his_ need for 'truth' or
>> 'meaning'.  Nor do I need to accept plural, provisional, pragmatic static
>> patterns of value as _being_ mainstream American Pragmatism.  It could be
>> interesting to enthusiastically explore, compare and contrast, but not see
>> the MoQ trapped there.
>> 
> 
> Here is a good example where you are placing me in a "good/bad" paradigm.
> This is your doing, not mine.  I am not asking for acceptance, I am
> contributing to the discusion.  I am not expecting you to view through
> my lens, I am only proposing possibilities.  The MoQ is not "trapped"
> there, on the contrary, it becomes free there.

Good, because your _view_, _lens_,  _rhetoric_, and _judgements_, while meaningful to you, don't  inspire me.   


> If you have no need for meaning, then why are you presenting your ideas?
> If you do not present your ideas as a truth by which to start constructing
> a metaphysics, then why do you present them?  This forum is not about
> winning an argument, it is about collaboration.  To collaborate, you could
> present something that is meaningful to you, and elaborate.

While representing your point-of-view, this paragraph makes no sense to me.  I asked you merely to  provide a definition/connotation/context for your question.  That is hardly an outrageous request.  By not complying you show that you have no intention of collaborating.  



> Your relegation of everything to patterns seems to be more of a trap.
> Let's say that everything is patterns, where do you go from there?  How do
> you build a metaphysics from that assumption?  The point is to start with
> something and build with it.  That is metaphysics.  The "patterns" idea is
> not a conclusion, it is a beginning.

Many moons before I read ZAMM, I read 'The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge' by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann.  The idea that reality was socially constructed seemed very accurate.  When I first read LILA, I was very excited by the notion of patterns of value: what can we know and how do we know it.  Since it is your opinion that "patterns" is just a "beginning", you must have a 'best' direction and end in mind.  Where might they be?   

If you want the truth to stand clear
before you, never be for or against.
The struggle between "for" and "against"
Is the mind's worst disease.
   (Sent-ts'an, 700CE)


Marsha 
 
 
 


>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 28, 2012, at 5:07 AM, "Carl Thames" <cthames at centurytel.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Isn't this the key to the whole MOQ thing?  Too many get caught up in
>> the good/bad dicotomy and end up on the hamster wheel of time.  I don't
>> know if you realize it, but this is exactly what Mark has been talking
>> about for some time now.  It's all about the lens through which you view
>> experience. It's not about the experience, the results of the experience,
>> etc.
>>> 
>>> Carl
>>> 
>>>> Hi Ian,
>>>> 
>>>> How to be a responsible and social being without climbing on a
>> bandwagon? It boggles the mind.  It may point to why the monk goes off into
>> the woods.  How to live where All is Goodness, while living within
>> good-bad, good-bad, good-bad, good-bad, good-bad, good-bad patterns...  My
>> only way to remove from the dilemma is in mindfulness where it dissolves.
>> But, but, but...
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 28, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Interesting indeed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Zizek also says "taking sides" is the problem. The bigger the issue
>>>>> (global warming, banking crisis, religious fundamentalist terrorism
>>>>> for example), the bigger this problem - where it is most humanly
>>>>> natural to stand up and be counted on one side (or the other).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ian
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:16 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Interesting...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you want the truth to stand clear
>>>>>> before you, never be for or against.
>>>>>> The struggle between "for" and "against"
>>>>>> Is the mind's worst disease.
>>>>>> (Sent-ts'an, 700CE)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 






 
___