[Dan] > I think the MOQ would say the individual invents the ficticous self > so in a sense we are our own creators.
[Ham] What is ficticious about the self? Do you mean that the self is non-existent (i.e., nothingness), or simply that is is an illusion? I have been arguing with Arthur Weatherall that "awareness without an object" is nothingness, and that the self has no empirical reality. Is this the sense in which you say it is "ficticious"? [Case] Isn't "awareness without an object" just awareness, or awareness of awareness. It certainly isn't nothing. Nothing is nothing. If there is no object what is it that is aware? If there is something that is aware, then it is not nothing. If empirical means accessible to the senses then certainly the self is nothing if not empirical. [Dan] > Buddhism teaches that the solution to suffering is the process of > overcoming the pervasive conditioning of seeing the self as separate from > the world. > We have to understand the true nature of people and things. When the > individual self is seen as an empty concept, as a convenient shorthand, > Buddhism teaches that we enter a state beyond suffering. The true path is > morality. > Thus the MOQ is built on morality. [Case] Learning to see ones self as separate from the world is one of the first tasks every infant confronts. It occurs during Piaget's sensorimotor stage. Other stages of human development and understanding build upon and transcend this stage. If as you suggest Buddhism strives for regression to this state why do they call it transcendence? 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
