[MD] Tit's

[Krimel]

[Krimel]
> How is it that a pattern is more likely to "exist" the a "thing"? The 
> point is not that patterns or thing do or do not exist the point is that 
> all we can know is our experience of them. I am "that" because "that" "for

> me" is my experience of "it". My reality, all of it every last bit is
subjective.

[Marsha]
I'm not sure what you're asking.  Patterns are interrelated and changing 
conceptions.  An inherently existing entity (as opposed to a convention 
entity) is thought to exist from it's own side.

I would imagine a pattern is built from prior experiences and definitions 
delivered by the culture.

There's two truths:  Absolute and Conventional.  Absolute is empty of 
inherent existence.  Conventional is illusion but functional.

[Krimel]
I guess the way we are both using our respective terms I don't see much
difference between them. But I think you are reading a lot of substance
oriented interpretation into the term "things". You may be right though and
patterns might be the better term. I can't promise to drop the term "things"
in the future but I think if you substitute "patterns" you won't find much
difference.

I don't really want to talk about "absolute truth" but if you are using
"illusion" in the sense that Ron outlined a couple of days ago we are
getting close. Ron's illusion is Pirsig's pair of "intellectual glasses".

[Marsha]
That an entity is empty of inherent existence is the truth.  That a entity 
inherently exists is false.

[Krimel]
I think the problem here is I don't know what you mean by "inherit
existence."