Andre,
You seem to the overflow of dmb's ego. Like one self isn't enough to contain it. Regardless, if being crude is your personality, be crude. It's not going to bother me. Marsha On May 16, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Joe to Andre and All: > I do not know why your post bothers me so. > > Andre: > Hey Joe. I don't know either. Perhaps it is my sometimes rather crude and > direct way of saying things. When it comes to the MOQ I want to defend its > hard fought for 'space'(in the way Jaynes uses it in his 'The origin of > Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind'). .. you know the root > expansion of rationality...a spiritual rationality. (ZMM) > > And this leads to your following statement that 'Self and individuality are > both indefinable in an evolutionary setting'. > > I cannot find much wrong with this statement, not any contradiction with the > MOQ (as far as I am aware) but where you got this from I am confused about > (was it in my post?). The snippet you took from my post was a rather > facetious and at the same time a sarcastic comment towards Marsha and her > hangers-on commenting on the framework from within which they are operating. > > It is not MOQ. It is SOM. > > And I maintain this, no matter how much Marsha tries to evoke a Buddhist type > interpretation. She has said herself she is no Buddhist, not even a student > of such. So any pretended defense in the name of Buddhism is, for me, a wank. > A dishonest travesty. A pretense at forwarding a point of view about which > she knows nothing...yet claiming authority without understanding what she > claims. > > And just to be clear. Buddhist philosophy is not SOM. > > Getting back to your question Joe: Does that mean that self and individuality > are unreal? > > I do not think that 'self' nor 'individuality' are unreal. They are useful > patterns of value. > > Joe: > I think it means that to see existence and essence as describing the same > thing, like the nature of an individual, is in error. > > Andre: > I fully agree with you. I have never understood what 'existence' means. The > word 'essence' I have begun to associate with Ham so I can wipe that one as > well. And then you mention the 'nature of an individual'. I have no idea what > you mean other than the MOQ's description of Lila. > > Joe: > Evolution matters,... > > Andre: > Why does evolution matter to you Joe? > 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
