David Morey stated June 7th 2007: >This might be of interest: > >http://www.philosophynow.org/issue61/61marks.htm > >Prof.Marks asks what is a human being? >His answer sounds like DQ.
Ant McWatt comments: David, Marks is getting there but - in his article at least - it seems that he is using the term "nothing" too literally. David Morey continued June 7th: >Perhaps he should not forget the four levels of SQ too? Good point. From the static (everyday) point of view in the MOQ, human beings are composed of static patterns (e.g. the four static levels in the MOQ or subjects and objects in SOM) plus a Dynamic edge (which Pirsig terms the "code of Art" in LILA). >From the Dynamic (Buddha's) perspective of the MOQ, all is Dynamic and the static patterns are just seen as temporary ever-changing crystallisations in a "sea of no-thingness". I think it is the latter point of view that Marks is talking about but without the terminology of the MOQ, his article leaves the reader (and himself) in a state of ambiguity. David Morey continued June 7th: >Otherwise would we be gods rather than humans? In a broader sense of "God"/no-thingness, yes. As would sausages, turnips and bricks! Best wishes, Anthony . _________________________________________________________________ The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk/ 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/
