Hi Marsha, When you start out below with "I", what are you pointing at?
Your quotes below are interesting, and I have read many similar philosophical arguments. When you complain about DMV not being consistent that surprises me since you subscribe to "ever changing patterns". I would think that you would fully understand DMV based on that theory. So, I do not know if you are just being argumentative for fun, or if you are very confused about what you are. What you further describe in the first paragraph is simply the confusion that living in Language brings, nothing more. When I have more time I will provide my interpretation of what you quote below and how it all points to the existence of self. Cheers, Mark On Sep 16, 2011, at 4:44 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark, > > I experience only a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and > impermanent, static patterns of inorganic, biological, social and > intellectual value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality. The 'self' can > best be represented by the tetralemma formulation. > > ------------- > > "This formulation is a tool towards understanding concepts such as the > not-self (or anatta) doctrine that is not handled particularly well by binary > logic. So, as with every static value pattern, the notion of the ‘self’ in > Buddhist philosophy is not simply considered an ‘illusion’ or an entity (as > claimed by some Christian understandings of the ‘soul’) with an inherent > self-existence. > > "That is, everything exists by being related to everything else > (‘dependent co- > origination’ is the usual term), but does not exist by itself. There is no > way to > state this in a way that conforms to Aristotelian logic. Hence the need for > the > logic of contradictory identity. The self exists by negating itself, as > Nishida puts > it. So, the phrase ‘the self is an illusion’ is just as much an error in > Buddhist > philosophy as ‘the self exists’. The traditional Buddhist formulation is > the > tetralemma: > > One cannot say that the self exists. > One cannot say that the self does not > exist. > One cannot say that self both exists and does > not exist. > One cannot say that the self neither exists nor does > not exist. > (Roberts, 2004) > > "Though he doesn’t knowingly employ the logic of the tetralemma, Pirsig does > share numerous ontological beliefs with Buddhist philosophy such as > Nagarjuna’s (c.300a, p.251) perception that the unconditioned (or Dynamic) is > the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static): > > In their ultimate nature things are devoid of conditionedness and > contingency > belongs to this level. This very truth is revealed by also saying that all > things > ultimately enter the indeterminate dharma or that within the heart of every > conditioned entity (as its core, as its true essence, as its very real > nature) there is > the indeterminate dharma. While the one expresses the transcendence of the > ultimate reality, the other speaks of its immanence. The one says that the > ultimate reality is not an entity apart and wholly removed from the > determinate, > but is the real nature of the determinate itself. > (Cooper,2002) > > (McWatt, A Critical Analysis of Robert Pirsig’s Metaphysics of > Quality,pp.55-56) > > ------------- > > > Marsha > > > On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:26 PM, 118 wrote: > >> Marsha, >> Are you speaking in theory? Your posts definitely suggest that you truly >> believe it exists. For example every time you use the pronoun "I". It is >> fine to deal in theories if they can be substantiated. It is better to post >> on our realities if they exist. >> >> I could say that nothing exists in theory and that we should drop that word >> from our vocabulary since it only misdirects. So, if the self does not >> exist, there is no need to describe it other than "non-existent". Is this >> where you are at with your metaphysics? If so, then I must caution you that >> you are in a cul-de-sac, on a very long and rewarding road. Accept your >> existence as analogy and move on. All in MHO. >> >> If the self does not exist, then what does it? Ball in your court, >> love-love. >> Mark >> >> On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:57 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Mark, >>> >>> The self neither exists, nor doesn't exist, nor both exists & doesn't >>> exist, nor neither exists and doesn't exist. >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 16, 2011, at 12:44 AM, 118 wrote: >>> >>>> OK, so you do believe in the existence of Self, my mistake. >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:20 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 15, 2011, at 8:45 PM, 118 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sure one can deny the existence of Self like Marsha does, >>>>>> but that is nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mark, >>>>> >>>>> I deny the existence of an independent, autonomous self. The >>>>> "self" is a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent >>>>> and impermanent, static patterns of inorganic, biological, social >>>>> and intellectual value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Marsha >>>>> > > > > > ___ > > > 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
