Quoting Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [Platt] > Why cite the reference unless the implication was to support your > view that "self" is imaginary, the topic of discussion? > > [Arlo] > Because I found it interesting, as I said when I offered the link. > What this one article, and what I think all of us who adhere to the > "self" is "illusory" offers is a look into the difference between > this illusion as pragmatic, and this illusion as "non-existent". No > one, lest of all me, would propose the "self" does not exist, rather > I propose the "self" is an illusion of experience, but a "real > illusion" (to use an oxymoron) that structures activity.
A "real illusion." Now I've heard everything -- an example of academic postmodernist thinking at it's looniest. > [Platt] > Whether I "smugly sit back and feel good" is irrelevant to the > discussion. Your character attack simply reflects the tactics of > moveon.org. So it comes as no surprise. > > [Arlo] > I'd say "character attack" is much a right-wing strategy as a > left-wing one in the modern political arena, but I do recognize that > both Hannity and O'Reilly have really stepped up their use of the > phrase "tactics of moveon.org" in recent weeks (anyone here with the > mindset to do it can listen to hear how often these pundits use the > phrase), so hearing you parrot this here is no big surprise. And it's no big surprise that you duck the issue and try to change the subject. > My point was that rather than take a topic for conversation, you > dismissed the entirety of the article by finding one point of > contention and then using it to ""prove" that anatta is a "low > quality" idea. In fact, all I did was point out something I found > superficially interesting, admitting that I had no real substantive > knowledge on the idea, but seeing how it relates to the topic at > hand, I though the information would enrich some. > > [Platt] > I've already commented on this passage where the self is acknowledged as real. > > [Arlo] > The "self"is "real" only in terms of its pragmatic application to the > world of activity.That is the theme echoed throughout ZMM and LILA, a > theme derived from the Buddhist core to the philosophy. We know what Pirsig had to say about pragmatism. He didn't treat it kindly as you recall. So I'm surprised you appeal to it here. As far as self being a theme of ZMM and Lila, you're right. The books star individuals like Lila, Phaedrus, Pirsig and John Wooden Leg. Without them, the MOQ wouldn't exist. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
