Bodvar to Andre: But I said (meant at least) that the dualisms you mentioned had dynamic/static connotation ... not S/O ... are we doomed to eternal misunderstandings?
Andre: Without wanting to be too unkind Bodvar, what you say very often does not coincide with what you mean and vice versa. Whether the misunderstandings occuring due to this will be eternal ...well that's up to you ...realising that 'eternal' is a fucking long time! Bodvar: 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 Andre: I take the Wkipedia with a grain of salt: I liken Brahman/Atman to the Big Self and Small Self. Nothing much subjective and /or objective about these. And, for your info there is a difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. Phaedrus went to a Hindu University. Bodvar: Did I speak about the "woolly" Indian philosophy Andre: Nothing 'woolly' about Indian philosophy Bodvar...just because it doesn't agree with your S/O aggregate :-) I really think you are looking for S/O divisions...just like the Plattonians looking for commies under the bed. Andre 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/
