Yes Marsha,
But if nobody understands what meaning you take from them, then the
post is not in the spirit of this forum, and is fluff.  How do these
quotes represent your understanding?  If you do not want to clarify,
we can always treat you like some bird song in the forest.  "Here
Marsha, Wanna Cracker?"  For every quote you recite we can give you a
big reward.

These could also be in the form of Kudos:  So.. Well done Marsha!  You
have posted another quote.  Keep up the good work!  We expect at least
5 quotes a day from you.  That is your quota.  Don't let us down, we
like the songs, they make good backgroud music while we are thinking.

By the way, where did you find the quote about the omni-stuff.  Are
you Googling "omni-words"?

Who wrote "I posted these quotes because they do represent exactly my
understanding...".  Please provide a reference for that quote.  I will
not give it much importance unless it was said by somebody Grand.

Oh, and what is your name a quote of?  If I Google that name, I come
up with Marsha Blackburn a Republican from Tenessee.  Do you quote
that name in honor of what she stands for?  If you want to quote
"Marsha", at least explain where on the internet you are taking that
name from.  I would help us understand your modus operandi.

All the best,
Mark

On 2/17/12, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> wrote:
>
>
> Mark,
>
> So now you are an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent?  And now a deep
> conversation with yourself?  You are amazing.
>
>
>
> I posted these quotes because they do represent exactly my understanding,
> but if you cannot understand that I suggest you ignore my posts.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 17, 2012, at 12:16 PM, 118 wrote:
>
>> Yes Marsha,
>> But these authors use the word in a different way than you do.  That
>> is the problem.  Your use is not consistent with theirs.  Because the
>> words are spelled the same way does not mean they mean the same thing.
>> This is the fuzzy aspect I am referring to.  Please be more clear in
>> your use of this word by following up with a well thought out
>> self-created metaphysical paragraph on what you mean.  It would help
>> all of us understand what you are trying to present to the group.
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
>>
>> On 2/16/12, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> I know of no reason not to use the word 'relative'.  Your fuzzy thinking
>>> is
>>> not a legitimate reason to reject the word.  The word 'relative',
>>> according
>>> to the dictionary, does not have a low quality meaning.  Anthony uses the
>>> word, Alan Watts uses the word, the Buddhists commonly use it; and given
>>> that ZAMM has references to Zen Buddhism, and RMP was first inspired by
>>> 'The
>>> Meeting of East and West' by F. S. C. Northrup and his recommendation of
>>> Steve Hagen's book, 'Buddhism Plain and Simple', I think it is very
>>> acceptable to use the word.  Even 'Relativism', a word I did not use,
>>> from a
>>> philosophical point-of-view does not have a low quality definition.
>>>
>>> Rel-a-tiv-ism
>>>
>>> Noun  _philosophy_
>>> The theory holding that criteria of judgements are relative, varying with
>>> individuals and their environment.
>>>    (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Relativism)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Marsha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Feb 16, 2012, at 5:58 PM, 118 <ununoctiums@gmai...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Marsha,
>>>> Then there is also the "relative" as in kinship or family "relation",
>>>> and we should not replace "relative" with "kinship" either, unless
>>>> that is what you are speaking of.  I think what you are using is
>>>> definition 8, which may be appropriate.  That is happiness in regard
>>>> to a person's view, or happiness stemming from a person (change
>>>> "happiness" to "truth").  We exude truths, we do not live by them.
>>>> That would be futile indeed.
>>>>
>>>> In Western metaphysics, the word relative has specific meaning, that
>>>> is, not the common everyday meaning.  Metaphysics is a form of Math as
>>>> presented by Russell.  Logic must be adhered to, otherwise it is "just
>>>> whatever you want it to be".  Words are operators in logic.  A fuzzy
>>>> word is not too useful, as you can tell from the firestorm.
>>>>
>>>> As you know from mindfulness, things do not have to be considered in
>>>> relation to other things.  The divide between such things is a false
>>>> divide that stems from the SO view of the world.  Here in MoQ we
>>>> understand that.  It is the nature of what creates the appearance of
>>>> such separation that we are interested in.  That, of course, is
>>>> Quality.  Everything we can put into sq has qualities, and MoQ is an
>>>> sq ghost of Quality.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for the clafification in what you meant. (?).
>>>>
>>>> I am on your side whether you like it or not.
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> On 2/16/12, MarshaV <valkyr@att....> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>
>>>>> The definition of 'relative' (see 6.) contains the word relation, but
>>>>> that
>>>>> does not mean it should be replaced by the word relationalism.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> relative
>>>>>
>>>>> noun
>>>>> 1. a person who is connected with another or others by blood or
>>>>> marriage.
>>>>> 2. something having, or standing in, some relation to something else.
>>>>> 3. something dependent upon external conditions for its specific
>>>>> nature,
>>>>> size, etc. ( opposed to absolute).
>>>>> 4. Grammar . a relative pronoun, adjective, or adverb.
>>>>>
>>>>> adjective
>>>>> 5. considered in relation to something else; comparative: the relative
>>>>> merits of democracy and monarchy.
>>>>> 6. existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something
>>>>> else; not absolute or independent:  Happiness is relative.
>>>>> 7. having relation or connection.
>>>>> 8. having reference or regard; relevant; pertinent (usually followed by
>>>>> to
>>>>> ): to determine the facts relative to an accident.
>>>>> 9. correspondent; proportionate: Value is relative to demand.
>>>>> 10. (of a term, name, etc.) depending for significance upon something
>>>>> else:
>>>>> “Better” is a relative term.
>>>>>
>>>>> (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/relative)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>> 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