[MD] Platt and Arlo

[david buchanan]

Paul, Arlo, Platt and all MOQers:

Paul Turner quoted an article:
"...All our inherited ideas of good and bad; all the cells which replicate 
and die in our bodies; all the viruses which effect our health; all the 
colours, shapes, sounds, smells, tastes and ideas we ever
experience, flow in, flow down and flow out. All our memories, sensations, 
emotions, desires and actions flow in to the vortex, shape it and flow out. 
...In reality we are not ultimately separate from the rest of the Sea of 
Conditions, from all the vast immensity of life itself. But we don't see it 
like that..."

Arlo quoted from Lila:
"...This Cartesian "Me," this autonomous little homunculus who sits behind 
our eyeballs looking out
through them in order to pass judgment on the affairs of the world, is just 
completely ridiculous. This self-appointed little editor of reality is just 
an impossible fiction that collapses the moment one examines it. This 
Cartesian "Me" is a software reality, not a hardware reality...."

Naturally, the resident Randian objected:
The metaphor in the article about Buddhist conditionality is much like 
Arlo's "individuals are raindrops" metaphor. The problem I have with both is 
the not-so-subtle implication that individual humans have the same value 
status as inorganic raindrops and ocean vortexes.

dmb chimes in:
Platt, when are you going to realize that your worship of the Ayn Randian 
autonomous individual is part and parcel of the SOM problem? This kind of 
excessive individualism is what leads to the isolation and alienation of our 
time. When are you going to stop responding to the Buddhist/mystical concept 
of self with anti-communist paranoia? When are you going to see how 
inappropriate that is? And in this case, when I say "inappropriate" I really 
mean "stupid". I'm sorry, but the acceptance or rejection of these concepts 
simply has nothing to do with the political ideologies that you fear so much 
and about which you know so little. Clinging to this little self, this 
static self is approximately the oppostie of enlightenment. And if we are 
free to the extent that we follow DQ, then we are free to the extent that we 
DON'T cling to the static forms, including - no - ESPECIALLY the static 
self. If you re-read the scene where Phaedrus finally finds Quality, you'll 
see that "he" disappeared. I really don't understand how a long-time MOQer 
like yourslef can continue to cling to this "ridiculous fiction". What the 
deal, man?

Here's a little more from that article:
Grabbing onto some conditions as they drift by, pushing away others, we each 
create an apparently workable ego-identity for ourselves and then spend the 
rest of our lives in a desperate attempt to preserve that identity. 
...Everything that lives is subject to decay. All conditioned things are 
impermanent. To be alive is to change. Without change we would be absolutely 
inert. But the un-Enlightened human condition is to fight change every inch 
of the way."

dmb says:
Desperately attempt to preserve the ego and fight change every inch of the 
way. Hmmm. Maybe it is political because that pretty well describes the 
average American conservative and nails Platt very squarely on the head. 
Don't you think?

Sorry. I couldn't resist.
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/