[SA] These Tits... and Maya, think of this, too, as follows: Who are we to say what is illusion, what is objective,
[Krimel] We generate the illusion or the illusion is generated in us. It is ours and we can call it what we will. [SA] 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? [Krimel] If a tree branch got pumped through my heart I don't reckon I would be calling it anything past, "Oh crap, how'ed that happ..." [SA] 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? [Krimel] For some what is in dispute is the fact of the tree. The fact of the illusion is that for each of us the TiT tree coalescences into a pattern of associations and experiences that form our understanding of the tree. 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/
