David, On Sep 8, 2013, at 12:49 AM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> Marsha, > >>> This has resulted in arguments and disagreements and name calling and all >>> the rest of it because if we presume that we're all here for the same thing >>> and we actually are here for very different reasons, with very different >>> values and intentions, then disharmony results. And this is what has >>> happened; especially with regard to dmb and yourself. >> >> I think you might pursue a discussion with dmb, or Ron, or Andre. >> >> >>> Anyway, it seems to me that Nagarjuna is all about the insight that all >>> things arise from DQ. >> >> Nagarjuna argues that the entire everyday world is, from the ultimate >> standpoint, nonexistent. >> >> >>> Other things exist on this planet that are not Dynamic Quality right? >> >> Yes, static patterns of value conventionally exist. >> >> >>> Is the insight that DQ is the source of all things the only valuable >>> insight of the MOQ? >> >> *Only* valuable insight? No, I don't think so. > > Shall I expect a response to the rest of what I wrote or are you not > interested in this discussion where we are talking ideas? > I prefer to keep discussions very simple and *try* to probe deeper. Is this a problem? Is there no idea in my response worth pursuing? If not, then maybe you have a specific question to ask? Or is there another statement you made that you'd prefer to explore. I'm interested in what we can know and how can we know it. Without dismissing the idea with some proclamation of 'absolute, amoral, cultural relativism,' what does it mean when Nagarjuna states that all truth is relative and conventional? If Buddhism's conventional truth in some ways equates to the MoQ's static quality, where is the agreement? Is there disagreement? 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
