> [Krimel]
> I believe we have experience "OF"
> something. That our realities are constructed as
> representations "OF"
> something. Call it TiTs. Call it objectivity. Call
> it Other. But when the
> Hindus speak of Maya and the world as illusion I
> would say they are
> referring to the confusion we experience when we
> confuse our individual
> representation with that indefinable stuff that is
> independent of us. I like to think of it as DQ.
These Tits... and Maya, think of this, too, as
follows: Who are we to say what is illusion, what is
objective, and just because something is not readily
pumped through our heart, such as a tree branch, how
does this make a tree branch isolated and barbaric?
Am I seeing old perspectives here when Tits are seen
as non-reality? Or, am I mixing Micah's strict
individuality, and these 'others' up? These 'others'
in politics are barbarians (old SOM perspective), in
religion it is illusion, in philosophy it can be a
tree can't be real cause it is outside my skin? Is
this making sense to anybody else?
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play
Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
http://sims.yahoo.com/
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/
