Quoting Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [Platt] > Note: This does not deny the reality of "self." It simply says value > comes first. Thoughts are real, or what Pirsig has written here is an > illusion. > > [Arlo] > Thoughts are "real"? I wonder if my thought of a glass of water will > keep my from dehydrating?
Since you intimate that what you "wonder" isn't real, no need for anyone to pay attention to that or anything else you say. It's like what Roger Scruton said about postmodernists. "They ask you not to believe them. So don't." > But this is very close to accuracy. The "self" is a thought among > thoughts, a "meta-thought" if you will, an organizer, a semiotic > focal point of memory, a pragmatically valuable "illusion" that has > allowed an emergent escape from biological patterns. And for that we > should love our "selves". But the "self" is a "reality" no more than > a memory of a painting, or the recollection of hearing a beautiful sonnet. Oh brother. Now memories aren't real. Neither is history I suppose. No wonder you libs are so eager to ignore the wisdom of the past. > As if often the case, your ridiculous dichotomies point to two absurd > and low quality poles. Acknowledging the reality of the "illusion", > and acknowledging the illusory nature of the "reality" points instead > to the Buddhist understanding of "self" and "world", which I add > underscores the MOQ's understanding as well. As shown in other posts, it seems what you call the Buddhist understanding of "self" is controversial, nor is it evident from the "illusory" thoughts of Pirsig that the MOQ is settled dictum on the subject. ------------------------------------------------- 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/
