Sure Marsha Being "nothing but Value" does not mean that it is worthless.
J A 3 feb 2013 kl. 10.29 skrev MarshaV: > > J-A, > > Save the Robert DeNiro impersonation... > > Metaphysics is the investigation into the nature of reality. The Metaphysics > of Quality has as its fundamental principle the idea that the world is > nothing but value. > > > Marsha > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2013, at 4:20 AM, Jan-Anders Andersson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Dear Marsha >> >> Who do you look at in the mirror? Some One else? >> >> I am talking to You. >> >> Being someone can be a pleasure or a suffering inferno, it all depends on >> how well we learn how to do it. By excellence or without balance. >> >> MOQ is about things, living organisms, social group identities and >> paradigms. They all have a dynamic (time related) and a static (almost >> permanent) quality side. >> >> The whole thing is "to be", or not to be. >> >> There is always something out there that is - phantastic. You'll see it if >> you look for it. >> >> JanAnders >> >> 3 feb 2013 kl. 09:17 skrev MarshaV <[email protected]>: >> >>> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> >>> A Buddhist perspective of self: No central unit, but a flow of mental >>> states which rise, produce function and disappear, which gives rise to the >>> next mental state producing a stream of mental states. >>> >>> >>> In Buddhism there is the term 'anatta', no-self: >>> >>> One cannot say that the self (I) exists. >>> One cannot say that the self (I) does not exist. >>> One cannot say that self (I) both exists and does not exist. >>> One cannot say that the self (I) neither exists nor does not exist. >>> >>> >>> >>> Some MoQ quotes: >>> >>> "An example of sammuti-sacca [conventional (relative) truth, or static >>> quality] is the concept of self. Pirsig follows the Buddha’s teachings >>> about the ‘self’ which doesn’t recognise that it has any real existence and >>> that only ‘nothingness’ (i.e. Dynamic Quality) is thought to be real. >>> According to Rahula, the Buddha taught that a clinging to the self as real >>> is the primary cause of dukkha (which is usually translated as >>> ‘suffering’). Having said this, Rahula (1959, p.55) makes it very clear >>> that it’s not incorrect to ‘use such expressions in our daily life as ‘I’, >>> ‘you’, ‘being’, ‘individual’, etc’ as long as it is remembered that the >>> self (like anything else conceptualised) is just a useful convention." >>> (McWatt, MoQ Textbook) >>> >>> >>> "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) >>> >>> >>> "This Cartesian 'Me,' this autonomous little homunculus who sits behind our >>> eyeballs looking out through them in order to pass judgment on the affairs >>> of the world, is just completely ridiculous. This self-appointed little >>> editor of reality is just an impossible fiction that collapses the moment >>> one examines it. This Cartesian 'Me' is a software reality, not a hardware >>> reality. This body on the left and this body on the right are running >>> variations of the same program, the same 'Me,' which doesn't belong to >>> either of them. The 'Me's' are simply a program format. >>> >>> "Talk about aliens from another planet. This program based on 'Me's' and >>> 'We's' is the alien. 'We' has only been here for a few thousand years or >>> so. But these bodies that 'We' has taken over were around for ten times >>> that long before 'We' came along. And the cells - my God, the cells have >>> been around for thousands of times that long." >>> (LILA, Chapter 15) >>> >>> >>> “The MOQ, as I understand it, denies any existence of a “self” that is >>> independent of inorganic, biological, social or intellectual patterns. >>> There is no “self” that contains these patterns. These patterns contain the >>> self. This denial agrees with both religious mysticism and scientific >>> knowledge. In Zen, there is reference to “big self” and “small self.” Small >>> self is the patterns. Big self is Dynamic Quality." >>> (RMP, Lila’s Child, Annotation 29) >>> >>> >>> "It's important to remember that both science and Eastern religions regard >>> "the individual" as an empty concept. It is literally a figure of speech. >>> If you start assigning concrete reality to it, you will find yourself in a >>> philosophic quandary". >>> (RMP, Lila’s Child, Annotattion 77) >>> >>> >>> "The MOQ, like the Buddhists and the Determinists (odd bedfellows) says >>> this “autonomous individual” is an illusion." >>> (RMP, Copleston) >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 > 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
