Hey David Swift:
> >DS says: Thanks for making the distinction. Are you all in agreement
> >that TiTs don't exist in MoQ? Have you gone completely over to the
> >idealism of Schopenhauer? If so what sense do you make of the inorganic
> >SQ level?
[Marsha]
> Greetings David,
> For me there are no TiTs, not even on the Inorganic Level. Not rocks,
> not
> mountains, not atoms are discreet entities. No phenomenon, no static
> patterns of value have inherent existence. I am not a Materialist or an
> Idealist. Rocks, mountains and atoms exist conventionally, but are empty
> of inherent existence.
{DS]
> Hello Marsha,
> This a puzzling development. How can the first static quality level
> exist
> without TiTs? And how can anything be conventional and how can we talk
> to
> each other without the third level? -david swift
Pirsig in his notes to the Copleston paper: "In the MOQ there are no things
in themselves."
http://robertpirsig.org/Copleston.htm
Platt
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/
