Hi Marsha, Recognizing a mirage for what it is is not "relativism, a nihilism and an > anti-intellectualism." Chasing after some half-baked definition of truth > is clinging to the last shreds of one's need for certainty. Who needs it? >
The first problem with referring to static quality as a "mirage" is that by its very definition it immediately elevates the appearance-reality distinction to the top of the hierarchy and drops static quality into the "appearance" category. Either Dynamic Quality or something else must then take its place in the "reality" category and we just join the long list of philosophers who have had a stab at assigning this or that to these supposedly fundamental categories. I really see the MOQ as an attempt to avoid that while still remaining a viable philosophy. The second problem is that by dismissing one element of its key explanatory relationship as an illusion it makes the MOQ (particularly what I call context (2)) a bit of a waste of time. However, recognising static quality (the mythos) for what it is is the value of context (1). I just wouldn't call it a mirage, for the reasons above if nothing else. Also, it just strikes me as a bit "Dummies Guide to Buddhism" which is odd given that I'm sure you've read some Nagarjuna? I advocate a middle way between the extremes of such things as the "illusion" and "certainty" you dichotomise above and the two contexts I discern in the MOQ offer a practical way to implement the middle way philosophically. Paul 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
