No Marsha, I was just observing - in parethesis, an aside - David M's own comment, so I could come back to it later if relevant ... I hadn't noticed your response on that specifically, so no cryptic comment from me. My reference to you was the explicit one referenced.
I agree / agreed with what you say by the way - just very hard to know how to translate that into actions on an e-mail discussion group, or actions in academic discourse, or actions in "conventional" western life. I try and I do, but it is still nevertheless hard to express in intelligible terms. In fact your summary here " .... Many of the problems this list is having "defining things" would melt away.The subject/object pov stays intact but can be seen as a workable method in a conventional world not reality itself." says to me that you and DMB are in fact agreeing. It is understandable that confusion is caused by the fact that - to paraphrase - we need definitions in order to discuss the real world, even if in the real world those definitions are insignificant (or much less significant, anyway). "Misplaced concreteness" this is often called. We talk in concrete terms of things that are much more .... err, nebulous, ephemeal, ineffable ... and mistake them for being more concrete and objective than they really are. Ian On 7/21/08, MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Glendinning" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:19 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] The Intellectual Gauntlet > > > > > > (BTW - David M's point about internal / external views is relevant to > > this too - and of course one of the reasons the individual / social > > confusion keeps arising when we are talking - SOMistically - about > > intellectual / social distinctions.) > > > > Ian > > > > > > > Greetings Ian, > > Maybe you are pointing to my rather cryptic remark about David's > Eastern/inner and Western/outer post (Sorry David!). Such a comment would > only make sense if one had a clear understanding of both Eastern and Western > points-of-view. A statement like "the eastern mystic may be happy to sit > meditating whilst the world > goes to hell." shows a depth of ignorance of an important half of the MOQ's > East/West synthesis. > > Nagarjuna obliterates subject/object dualism in a manner that shouldn't be > missed. This leaves the air clean and fresh for a new world-view > experience. Many of the problems this list is having "defining things" > would melt away. The subject/object pov stays intact but can be seen as a > workable method in a conventional world not reality itself. > > 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/ > 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/
