Platt, SA, David M, DMB, et al Yes but when a Zen Buddhist points out illusion he is not saying it's not real - he's pointing out that a large part of reality is illusory - real, just not what it seems. We're just debaiting the definition of "real".
Logical sense ? + Logical consistency - depends which rules of consistency you admit, which forms of logic you admit (see also economy) + Emprical experience - fair enough (but don't ignore the illusory aspects under discussion here) + Economy of explanation - well yes, but as Einstein said "As simple as possible but not more so." Occam is not the last word beware complexity and illusory causality. Ian On 9/23/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > [Platt] > > > I think maybe you're on to something. Rather than > > > call the self an illusion > > > as Buddhists do, ask what sort of real is it? For me > > > it is real as a subject, real > > > as an object, and real as a pattern of values > > > depending on my perspective. > > > > > > What Buddhists call it an illusion? > > According to Pirsig, Zen Buddhists. > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > 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/
