dmb,
On Apr 20, 2012, at 2:32 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > [email protected] said to Dmb & Andre, > > > Let me expand: And for the record, in my experience of mindfulness, there is > no 'I'. If there were such an 'I', it would no longer be considered > mindfulness, but would be the process involving the twin reification of self > (I) and object. Marsha: Yes, I meant what I wrote. > dmb says: > Mindfulness is a matter of being fully aware and in touch with your own inner > experience. It's about paying attention to the felt qualities of your present > experience without judgement or attachment. Marsha: How do you know this? > Claiming to be mindful, even if it were true, is not relevant to the actual > complaint, which is about a lack of conceptual clarity and logical coherence. Marsha: In my* experience, mindfulness is direct experience prior to conceptions and the twin reification of 'self' and other. If you have a different experience of mindfulness, that's a difference in experience. *The use of this 'I' or 'my' is for social discourse only. "This fictitious 'man' has many synonyms; 'mankind,' 'people,' 'the public,' and even such pronouns as 'I,' 'he,' and 'they.' Our language is so organized around them and they are so convenient to use it is impossible to get rid of them. There is really no need to. Like 'substance' they can be used as long as it is remembered that they're terms for collections of patterns and not some independent primary reality of their own." (LILA, Chapter 12) Marsha: It is not incoherent if you understand that the use of the 'I' is merely a nominal convention labeling a stream, or flow, of patterns WITHOUT OWNERSHIP. The pattern of personal ownership is a pattern one does not necessarily need to be possessed by. So if you think 'awareness' assumes or implies ownership or possession, I'm here to tell you it does not. Your DEMAND for conceptual clarity and logical coherence is pretty amusing in a discussion of a metaphysics where the author, himself, states that the MoQ "is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity.". And presenting a quote by the Dalai Lama doesn't miraculously make you an expert in conceptual clarity and logical coherence. I'd say you're more experienced in whining, sighing, talk of impatience and ad hominem attacks. Such is your intellectual competence. > It is logically inconsistent to say "there is no I in my experience". Marsha: It was a response to comment that is not present. It didn't spring out of nowhere. It had context. And I have been presenting the use of "I" and "my" with plenty of explanation that I mean the flow of patterns, without the attachment or ownership having arisen. > Unless you make some kind of distinction or otherwise qualify the meaning of > "I" and "my", it's like saying there's no cash in my coins or no food in my > lunch. It's just nonsense. Marsha: This simile means nothing to me. It is certainly no demonstration of 'conceptual clarity and logical coherence'. It is deceptive nonsense, blarney. 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
