X-man, My definition of self agrees with my experience. How does your experience of the self agree with the Ultimate?
Marsha On Feb 4, 2013, at 1:39 PM, X <[email protected]> wrote: > Only if you're a rationalist. An empiricist can trace > Concepts to their agreement with experience. Ala Hume. > > MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> X-man, >> >> In such a way a unicorn exists too. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:09 AM, X <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The tetralemma can be addressed in this way >>> We ask if the concept has meaning if it has value. >>> If it has value we can say it exists. >>> >>> >>> MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 29, 2013, at 7:21 PM, MarshaV wrote: >>>> >>>> But, X-man and dmb, >>>> >>>> the definition in the previous post (below) represents a static >>>> interpretation, Ultimately: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 28, 2013, at 11:56 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Greetings X-man and dmb, >>>> >>>> Here's my definition of the self: the “self” is a flow of ever-changing, >>>> conditionally co-dependent and impermanent static patterns 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
