Hi Joe,
On Apr 17, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi MarshaV and All,
>
> "'The individual' is an empty concept." In a format of DQ/SQ metaphysics is
> DQ an empty concept? Indefinable does not mean "empty". The theory of
> knowledge has to be tweaked to account for the indefinable.
>
> Joe
About an independent existing self:
“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)
"The MOQ, like the Buddhists and the Determinists (odd bedfellows) says this
“autonomous individual” is an illusion."
(RMP, Copleston Annotations)
---
Marsha:
Do you mean "empty" as in 'empty of independent existence'? In what way would
you suggest knowledge needs to be tweaked. Direct perceptual awareness and
abstracted patterned concepts represent two types of knowledge. But then there
is Dynamic Quality which is undivideable/unpatterned. Or do you mean
something else?
Marsha
>
>
> On 4/17/13 1:09 AM, "MarshaV" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ³It¹s important to remember that both science and Eastern religions regard
>> Œthe individual¹ as an empty concept. It is literally a figure of speech. If
>> you start assigning a concrete reality to it, you will find yourself in a
>> philosophic quandary.²
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
