Hi Marsha,

Do you suffer? Do you experience pain in any way?

-David.

> > Hi Marsha,
> > > Yes, and it is also because of the continual change that there is beauty, or existence, or life, or whatever...
> >
> >
> > But why are things beautiful if they change? Why do things exist if they change? What's so important about change? Does change bring things into being? That seems to be what you're suggesting when you say "because of .. change ..there is .. existence"
>
> Why? I don't know why things change. Why? I don' know why things exist. What? I don't know what is so 'important' about change. I didn't say anything about 'being', and I don't know anything that is unchanging.
>
>
> > > I saw the movie a long while ago. It did not have the impact of ZAMM & Quality. :-). While science may not be presently ready to distinguish between a good and bad idea, the quantum perspective will transform the subject-object world view. There are scientists who cannot help but consider the 'philosophical' implications of relativity.
> >
> > Do you think everything is relative? Or do you think that some things are better than others?
>
> Marsha:
> You've setup an either/or fallacy, but I will try to answer. If by 'relative' you mean 'existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else' my and would be yes on both counts. I think all patterns depend upon other patterns for their existence AND I think some patterns are better than others.
>
>
> > > Better? Too often it is my ego that wants to determine what is better from MY point-of-view. I find if I can remember that experience is relative, I am more likely not to cause suffering. But my ego is a hard nut to crack. - On some other level it is all good. I think of this quote:
> > >
> > > "To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of value it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free."
> >
> > Do you know what is better generally? Not just from YOUR point of view?
>
> Marsha:
> Better from whose point-of-view, if not mine?
>
>
> > > > I agree. It is constant change. Wait, how do we even distinguish between these different words we are speaking now if things are constant change?
> > >
> > > How do you? You use "these conventional words" for their convenience until better words come along.
> >
> > Is it really that simple?
>
> Marsha:
> Is it really more complicated? Language - words - evolve.
>
>
> > > > Am I attached to these words?
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you?
> >
> > Yes I would say I am attached to words in so far as I use them. Enlightened people get attached to things too.. Just as enlightened people suffer..
> >
> > >
> > > > I must be treating them as fixed otherwise they would appear to me as a whole mumbojumbo stream of letters.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you are too static with the meaning of words (especially to your own convenience) you will create your own form of misunderstanding, because language evolves and has meaning relative to other words in the particular context.
> >
> > I agree, but if you are too fluid with meanings of words, things become very chaotic and lose all meaning as well.
>
> I's probably good to remember the context in most conversational situations.
>
>
> > > > What happens when they are no longer used? Will I suffer? What do you think Marsha?
> > >
> > > I cannot relate to these questions.
> >
> > You can't relate to expecting there will being something, then being surprised it is no longer there? You've never experienced that?
>
> I didn't understand the meaning of your questions; I still don't.
>
>
> > > > Once again, this is why we're having this discussion, because I disagree with this statement and want to talk to you about it.
> > >
> > > Maybe you should give some reason for you disagreement, especially since you have agreed their is no fixed-point. If not conditionally co-dependent on causes, conditions and preferences, than what? Fixed? Independent?
> > Static. And I have given my opinion.. I've been telling it to you through all of my comments. I think that static quality is every thing which you find in an encyclopaedia as per the definition given in Lila.
> >
>
>
> I think static quality represents all that is in the encyclopedia too. But I am interested in exploring static _patterns_ of value, rather than the more abstract 'static quality'. You: static quality; me: static patterns of value.
>
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
> 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