Mark, Why do you think what you write should have value for me? I haven't asked you anything. I take your writing to be an expanded version of your 'Song To Myself'. Nowhere to go except to agree or disagree. That type of thinking gives me the creeps. I read your words as an interpretation of _your experience_, not an interpretation of EXPERIENCE. I accept your view as one of many. If you think that Alan Wallace is not a Buddhist, that's what you think. Maybe by some criteria you've developed he cannot be a Buddhist. I have no desire to change your mind. It's a conventional label. Just like the concept of reification doesn't work for you? Okay. But it works for me, so I will continue to explore it in the Buddhist (as I understand it) sense. If you want to reject that conventional reality, as stated in many modern Buddhist texts, is associated with the word 'relative', reject it. It matches my experience, so I will continue to use the word, explore it and post it. I won't be dissuaded by some whimpy kids proclaiming that it doesn't agree with their cultural biases.
Bugger off Mark! Marsha On Nov 17, 2011, at 5:51 PM, 118 wrote: > Marsha, > Are you saying that you have no opinion? > > I spent 6 years doing do doctorate of philosophy (Ph.D.) work, and was > ordained by the powers that be at Oxford. I then spent years in > internship. Does this make me a philosopher? Does this make me > anything? I think not. > > You need to drop these static references that make you believe > somebody is something. One can become a Buddhist by learning from a > Lilly, and be ordained by a mouse. If you want to blindly accept what > somebody writes because of their written biography, then you just > become a docile follower, which is about as far from Buddhism as one > can get. Buddhism teaches one just the opposite. > > Clearly Wallace is not a Buddhist, that I CAN tell you. For one, he > would not be parading around arrogantly proselytizing on what Buddhism > IS. Secondly, from the quotes you provide, Wallace is about as stuck > in the static as one can get. Perhaps you have some quotes from > Wallace that do indicate that he represents Buddhist thought. If not, > then perhaps you should rethink your reverence of him. > > I am most eager to see why you think he is a Buddhist. I do not > expect an answer, however, because I think you have no idea. You just > spend your time reading books. > > Cheers, > > Mark > > On Nov 17, 2011, at 11:07 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> Mark, >> >> Alan Wallace spent fourteen years as a Buddhist monk and was ordained by the >> Dalai Lama. He earned his undergraduate degree in physics and the >> philosophy of science, and his PhD in religious studies. If you read the >> passage, he states that "Since visual images, or qualia, are not located >> either outside or inside our heads...", what do you think? Do you think he >> means in an objective or subjective sense.? >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> On Nov 17, 2011, at 1:59 PM, 118 wrote: >> >>> Hi Marsha, >>> Yes, that is what I find distracting, obscuring the quote, which is why I >>> ask questions, so as to provide clarity. I am not sure how Wallace is >>> using "quaila" since I have not read the book who's quote you present as >>> argument. Do you know if he is presenting it in an objective sense, >>> subjective, both or neither? >>> >>> In this way I can understand why you present the quote as significant to >>> MoQ. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:11 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Mark, >>>> >>>> Easier to obscure the quote than to consider it seriously. Right. I've >>>> got it... >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 17, 2011, at 12:54 PM, 118 wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Alan (spokes person, Marsha), >>>>> >>>>> There is a condition known as Cortical Blindness. This is presented as >>>>> the inability to form visual images in the visual cortex. Such a thing >>>>> can arise from brain injury. This would argue that images ARE formed >>>>> within the brain. Perhaps you are using "visual images" in a different >>>>> way. Please be so kind as to explain. >>>>> >>>>> If you, Alan, wish to contribute to MoQ, you also agree to engage in >>>>> explanations of your statements. Otherwise it is just dogma that a >>>>> discussion forum has no use for. >>>>> >>>>> Mark >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 17, 2011, at 1:13 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 6:42 PM, david buchanan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Matt said to Dan: >>>>>>> You've been taking "Don's dog dish" as an made-up, fictional >>>>>>> account--is that right? And _that's_ why "what dish" makes sense? >>>>>>> ...It had suddenly occurred to me, because of the lilt of some of your >>>>>>> comments to me and to Dave, that you were basing the usage of >>>>>>> "imaginary" on the fact that I "made up" the example, as in: I have no >>>>>>> friends by these names, so it is an imaginary example. ... I still >>>>>>> don't know whether you think it is important or not that some cases are >>>>>>> anecdotal and some made up whole cloth; some are reportings of >>>>>>> experience, some are thought-experiments. That's what I was trying to >>>>>>> suss out last time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> dmb says: >>>>>>> Right. The tree in the forest is a classic thought experiment and >>>>>>> nobody ever asks which forest or what kind of tree, let alone a >>>>>>> specific and particular tree that Don's dog pees upon. I mean, I took >>>>>>> "Don's dog dish" to be a concrete and particular experience (although >>>>>>> trivial) but I take the tree that no one's around to hear as a >>>>>>> hypothetical fiction, as an abstract tree of no particular type and one >>>>>>> described in terms of being part of nobody's experience when it falls. >>>>>>> Concrete and abstract are very important categories when discussing >>>>>>> empirical reasons. I'd even say that no real conversation is going to >>>>>>> occur until that is ironed out. >>>>>> >>>>>> Marsha: >>>>>> Can you consider this when discussing empirical reasons: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Philosophers and scientists have long recognized the illusory nature of >>>>>> perceptual appearance. When we observe the world around us, we see >>>>>> images, such as shapes and colors, that lack physical attributes. The >>>>>> visual image of the color red, for instance, doesn't have any mass or >>>>>> atomic structure. It isn't located in the external world, for it arises >>>>>> partly in dependence upon our visual sense faculty, including the eye, >>>>>> the optic nerve, the visual cortex. There are clearly brain functions >>>>>> that contribute to the generation of red images, but no evidence that >>>>>> those neural correlates of perception are actually _identical_ to those >>>>>> images. So there is no compelling reason to believe that the images are >>>>>> located inside our heads. Since visual images, or qualia, are not >>>>>> located either outside or inside our heads, they don't seem to have any >>>>>> spatial location at all. The same is true of all other kinds of sensory >>>>>> qualia, including sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensat i > o >> n >>>>> s >>>>>> ." >>>>>> >>>>>> (Wallace, B. Alan, 'Hidden Dimensions: The Unification of Physics and >>>>>> Consciousness',p.50) >>>>>> >>>>>> Seems to me both "concrete" and "abstract" are patterns abstracted from >>>>>> the pure experience. ___ 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
