At 04:55 AM 1/29/2009, Bo wrote:
> Marsha said:
> I am concerned that the patterns are seen as independent (inherently
> existing) entities, just a new name for objects. This I think is the
> wrong view. RMP has stated that there are no thing-in-themselves in
> the MOQ, and he has mentioned Buddhism and emptiness, though he has
> not stated my interpretation directly. Bo replied: ...all patterns are
> static quality and in the Q context they are independent and exists
> very much in themselves.
[Bo:]
I have spoken to Marsha before, she will possibly understand that
it's the Quality/Concept fallacy that creates the puzzle .
Greetings Bo,
I have no way of understanding this comment. I do not understand you
puzzlement or the Quality/Concept fallacy.
Patterns are empty of inherent existence. I do not see a paradox.
puzzlement or contradiction in this statement. And I await an
explanation to my 09:45 AM 1/28/2009 post.
Marsha
_____________
Disclaimer: To quote Sgt. Schultz from Stalag 13, "I know nothing!"
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/
