At 03:06 PM 1/19/2009, you wrote:
> >[Marsha]
> >My meaning is that a thing does not inherently exist. A thing exist
> >based on convention.
> >
> >[Krimel]
> >So what does "exist" or have inherent existence?
>
>[Marsha]
>No thing inherently exists. No thing exists from its own
>side. There is no thing-in-itself. No thing has its own essence or
>nature, etc.
>
>Entities exist by convention and are best represented as patterns,
>ever-changing, interrelated, mutually dependent static patterns of value,
>
>[Krimel]
>So for you, unless the cheese stands alone its existence is insignificant?
Marsha
No, spovs are not insignificant, but they are also not TiTs.
[Krimel]
TiTs are not TiTs because they have some form of existence independent of
every other TiT. They are TiTs because whatever existence they have is
independent of the perceiver. The idea of TiTs at least as Pirsig presents
it in ZMM is a pretty mystical notion.
Krimel,
It is my understanding that a TiT is an object or event that has
independent existence. In the MOQ there are no things-in-themselves,
and in Buddhism there are no things-in-themselves. In both, there
are no self and no objects. Self and objects are best represented as
ever-changing, interrelated, mutually dependent static patterns of
value. Please explain why do you have such a problem with this?
I do not understand the statement ending with "pretty mystical
notion", and I don't understand your point in making it.
Marsha
.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is a
reflection of all the others in a fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.
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/
