On 3/22/10 6:33 PM, "Andre Broersen" <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip> > Andre: > He Joe. We accept the theory of evolution because it is a high quality > idea with much explanatory power. In the presence of evolution essence > makes no sense. Cannot exist. Essence means that somehing exists > inherently, all by itself, from itself, of itself... i.e. > independently, individually. (like self-contained little isolated > islands) > > This flies in the face of the 'scientifically' supported idea of > evolution which, in Buddhist terminology is supported with the idea of > 'co-dependent arising'. Nothing arises independently or individually. > In other words, all is related and co-dependent. This idea is > supported by the DQ/SQ of the MoQ. (Rememder Pirsig's amendment to the > Descartes statement?) <snip> Hi Andre and all, I agree you don¹t get much clarity about ³essence² when you look at it all by itself. However, individuality¹ strikes a note for ³essence² as a level in existence. When I was pondering evolution I accepted a hierarchy of levels in existence. ³Individuality² participates in all those levels. Indeed, ³individuality² trumps DQ in every case where evolution proposes a different individual level in existence. The individual exists. DQ exists in the individual. I was flabbergasted at the dependent role that DQ plays to ³individuality². There is no way of knowing DQ apart from the ³individual². I don¹t expect this is a surprising development, but it sure was a surprise to me. Joe > Cheers > 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/md/archives.html 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/md/archives.html
