----- Original Message -----
From: "Heather Perella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Truth and the Linguistic Turn
Marsha:
I think that my point-of-view fits well with the
MOQ, but sometimes it's hard tell. If it doesn't, I
wish I would be more challenged.
SA:
How can somebody challenge the emptiness you like
to talk about?
I do love to laugh. Hahahaha. I don't remember doing a lot of talking
about emptiness. I sometimes like to identify it. But I suppose if you
wanted to challenge the idea of emptiness you could bring me something that
exists independently and doesn't change. That might be an appropriate
challenge.
You do say there is "no-self", but
then you "...wish (you) would be more challenged."
Which one is it?
My best guess would be both. Emptiness and conventional self. Or maybe
neither. Am I a wave? Or am I a particle? Hard to tell. Maybe a
collection of patterns, static patterns, probability patterns. I am NOT
an entity that inherently exists, no such Marsha can be found.
The lock upon my garden gate's a snail, that's what it is...
you wanted one,
Yes, I would like to see better where Buddhism and the MOQ agree. They both
agree there is no SELF. I see patterns as conventional entitites. I don't
think that DQ relates to emptiness. Static patterns of value are empty and
are totally the product of conceptual thought. The four levels are the
product of conceptual thought. The MOQ is a product of conceptual thought.
Empty. Empty. Empty. Empty. I don't think the net-of-jewels model fits
into the MOQ. This bother me.
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
