{Marsha]
A thing-in-itself (inherently existing object) would be an entity that has
an existence independent of thoughts and perceptions, an entity that exists
from its own side. Both Buddhism and the MOQ deny such an entity.
Buddhism says that entities are empty of inherent existence. I surmise that
the idea of a pattern is opposed to the idea of an inherently existing
entity.
[Krimel]
How is it that a pattern is more likely to "exist" the a "thing"? The point
is not that patterns or thing do or do not exist the point is that all we
can know is our experience of them. I am "that" because "that" "for me" is
my experience of "it". My reality, all of it every last bit is subjective.
[Marsha}
That things appear to have an independent existence would be illusion. That
we think they have an independent existence is the source of all suffering.
That the world appears to function like things independently exist is its
conventional operating procedure. Not to understand the two different modes
of existing is ignorance.
[Krimel]
So how is the claim that a thing or pattern does not have it own existence
any less of an illusion? (Is that a double or triple negative? I lost
count.)
I think that Buddhism holds is that it is the clinging to the patterns that
is the source of suffering. Trouble arises from the belief that this or that
pattern or the lack of patterns is THE pattern.
[Marsha]
It is not that I value the notion of no structure, it is that I value
existing closer to the truth. As I see it that means the world is built on
conceptions.. Maybe shared, patterned conceptions, but conceptions
none-the-less.
[Krimel]
Isn't getting closer to some kind truth what everyone wants? Well that and a
cheeseburger and maybe an evening with Selma Hayek or Kate Beckensale or
_______________ fill in the blank, I guess. Still our perception of truth is
structured by the tools we bring to bear in our search for it. Those tools,
our senses and our nervous systems, have evolved over the last 4 billion
years to successfully interact with the world we are born into. We are
pattern detectors. We are makers of meaning. The great task of living is to
reduce uncertainty and to create shared meaning. It is hard for me to see
how we can accomplish this by denying that there is anything there.
[Marsha}
The Middle Way, as I understand it, is between thinking objects are exactly
as they appear (reificationists) and thinking there is no bases for anything
at all (nihilists).
[Krimel]
All I have to go on is my Sparknotes so if you say so but how is that
different from what I said earlier?
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/
