[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] I'm not sure what you're asking. Patterns are interrelated and changing conceptions. An inherently existing entity (as opposed to a convention entity) is thought to exist from it's own side. I would imagine a pattern is built from prior experiences and definitions delivered by the culture. There's two truths: Absolute and Conventional. Absolute is empty of inherent existence. Conventional is illusion but functional. [Krimel] I guess the way we are both using our respective terms I don't see much difference between them. But I think you are reading a lot of substance oriented interpretation into the term "things". You may be right though and patterns might be the better term. I can't promise to drop the term "things" in the future but I think if you substitute "patterns" you won't find much difference. I don't really want to talk about "absolute truth" but if you are using "illusion" in the sense that Ron outlined a couple of days ago we are getting close. Ron's illusion is Pirsig's pair of "intellectual glasses". [Marsha] That an entity is empty of inherent existence is the truth. That a entity inherently exists is false. [Krimel] I think the problem here is I don't know what you mean by "inherit existence." 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/
