Andre
28 Jan.
Bodvar to Andre and Steve:
> > But don't all these have Dynamic/Static connotations? Which is my
> > point. There can only variations of the dynamic/static dualism ... or
> > else it will be variation of the subject/object one. The "innumerable"
> > ways the Reality=Quality can be split is nonsense.
Andre:
> But those mentioned do not have the meaning/connotations you ascribe
> to your s/o aggregate which is some subjective inhere vs an objective
> outthere. The S/O split is not empirically/experientially based.
But I said (meant at least) that the dualisms you mentioned had
dynamic/static connotation ... not S/O ... are we doomed to eternal
misunderstandings?
Re. "Brahman/Atman" , this is from Wikipedia.
Some Upanishadic statements identify the Atman, the inner
essence of the human being, while Advaita philosophy
considers Brahman to be without form, qualities, or attributes,
and here "Atman" sounds like a definition of subjectivity, while
"Brahman sounds like a definition of "dynamic" in other words one
from the SOM and one from the MOQ. Did I speak about the "woolly"
Indian philosophy
"Yin/Yang" do have dynamic/static connotations. Doesn't it?
"Nothingness/Being", is more familiar and has clear dynamic/static
connotations.
Bodvar
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/
