[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[Heather Perella]

     [Ian]
> We can (must) use literal sounding talk about it
without any care as > to whether there is anything
under it on which it is metaphorically
> based.


     When I read this what comes to mind is as
follows:

     dq is sq 
     dq and sq overlap
     quality

     Each of these are the same metaphorically.

     As to self, which was brought up somewhere today
on the postings, yes sq is self and dq is big self,
but what is big self?  I don't know, nobody does, and
yet, this big self includes small self (sq), right? 
What is sq?  I don't know.  This is in accord with
ultimate quality/reality.  Can't sq ultimate quality.
     Therefore, "...without any care as to whether...
anything under..." literal sounding talk (sq) that is
metaphorically based, to me, sounds as sq-transparent.
 Sq being dq.  Nothing is under literal talk. 
Metaphor=literal.  Sq not able to ultimately define,
which is the "beyond definition", Marsha mentioned.


snow, cold, so grateful the heat is on,
SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time 
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news