With respect to autonomy, the story is similar. So long as I identify as the
free thinker of my thoughts or agent of actions, they are always felt to be
personally MY thoughts or actions. And if they are felt to be personally my
thoughts or actions, then I also identify as their personal
Hi Joe,
You are making me so crazy with your emotions that I feel like one
flew over the kookoo's nest takes flight with Kareem Abdul Jabaar as
a pilot on an Airplane. How's that for a definition. Just because DQ
is undefinable does not mean something can not be defined as DQ. Your
logic is
On Jul 14, 2011, at 8:20 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote:
Hi Marsha and all,
When emotions are viewed as DQ, for me the biggest question is HOW. In some
way I have to train my perceptions to avoid definition and roll with
experience, Thank you! Pirsig!
I was painting again last night. There is
Hi Joe,
It's all analogy - biology, chemistry, emotions - all the way down,,, when
named.
Amazing. Tonight is E-minor, blue - diamonds and rust. I need to cry, but
can't.
So MU.
Marsha
On Jul 13, 2011, at 6:56 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote:
Hi Steve, Marsha and all,
Between
Hi Marsha and all,
When emotions are viewed as DQ, for me the biggest question is HOW. In some
way I have to train my perceptions to avoid definition and roll with
experience, Thank you! Pirsig!
I am all on fire, sometimes, realizing I know nothing. I struggle to
experience the undefined. I
Hi Marsha,
Marsha:
I just don't get the insistence on MY free-will. As far as the
ethical considerations, these statements make the most sense to me.
Dharma, like rta, means 'what holds together.' It is the basis of all order.
It equals righteousness. It is the ethical code. It is the stable
On Jul 13, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:
Hi Marsha,
Marsha:
I just don't get the insistence on MY free-will. As far as the
ethical considerations, these statements make the most sense to me.
Dharma, like rta, means 'what holds together.' It is the basis of all
order. It
Hi Steve, Marsha and all,
Between external duty, and internal duty seems to encompass everything.
Perhaps, viewing emotions as DQ places them beyond internal duty? When
emotions are defined SQ, they cease to be emotions. Emotions cannot be
defined as DQ since DQ in itself is indefinable.
I agree with Ian, here. Obviously.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Ian Glendinning
ian.glendinn...@gmail.comwrote:
Marsha, (and Steve, for example)
Steve said
It makes no sense to say that we choose our values when we ARE
nothing but our values. Likewise, it makes no
sense to say that we
Hi John,
I've missed you.
I'm caring about anatta at the moment. I just don't get the insistence on MY
free-will. As far as the ethical considerations, these statements make the
most sense to me.
Dharma, like rta, means 'what holds together.' It is the basis of all order.
It equals
John,
I'm sticking with MU, but here again is how Nagarjuna, from Mlamadhyamakakrik
fame, replaces cause with conditions. I've posted this many times so I hope it
will stand on its own without further explanation:
The argument against causation is tightly intertwined with the positive
Marsha, (and Steve, for example)
Steve said
It makes no sense to say that we choose our values when we ARE
nothing but our values. Likewise, it makes no
sense to say that we are determined by our values when we ARE our values.
This is the kind of SOMis intellectual argument that has turned me
On Jul 11, 2011, at 5:57 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
Marsha, (and Steve, for example)
Steve said
It makes no sense to say that we choose our values when we ARE
nothing but our values. Likewise, it makes no
sense to say that we are determined by our values when we ARE our values.
I'd say
Hi Steve,
To answer you question specifically, in Chapter 14 Lila states that she
is not anybody. If this is a rejection of the self, a self that is created
though
repeatedly identifying with static patterns of value, my guess would be
that Lila, the character, does not have free will.
Hi Marsha,
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 3:45 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hi Steve,
To answer you question specifically, in Chapter 14 Lila states that she
is not anybody. If this is a rejection of the self, a self that is created
though
repeatedly identifying with static patterns of
On Jul 9, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Steven Peterson wrote:
Hi Marsha,
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 3:45 AM, MarshaV val...@att.net wrote:
Hi Steve,
To answer you question specifically, in Chapter 14 Lila states that she
is not anybody. If this is a rejection of the self, a self that is created
Hello again Steve,
This MU thing is interesting. If one proclaims MU, as I often do by
stating 'not this, not that', one is proclaimed the village idiot. But
MU is beyond language, so trying to explain the MU position may
also get you proclaimed to be the village idiot. I think you did a
Hi all, (dmb),
Please consider this Lila quote:
It isn't Lila that has quality; it's Quality that has Lila. Nothing
can have Quality. To have something is to possess it, and to possess
something is to dominate it. Nothing dominates Quality. If there's
domination and possession involved, it's
18 matches
Mail list logo
