[MD] Truth and the Linguistic Turn

[Marsha]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Heather Perella" <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Truth and the Linguistic Turn


> Marsha:
>     I think that my point-of-view fits well with the
> MOQ, but sometimes it's hard tell.  If it doesn't, I
> wish I would be more challenged.
>
>
> SA:
>     How can somebody challenge the emptiness you like
> to talk about?

I do love to laugh.  Hahahaha.  I don't remember doing a lot of talking 
about emptiness.  I sometimes like to identify it.  But I suppose if you 
wanted to challenge the idea of emptiness you could bring me something that 
exists independently and doesn't change.  That might be an appropriate 
challenge.

You do say there is "no-self", but
> then you "...wish (you) would be more challenged."
> Which one is it?

My best guess would be both.   Emptiness and conventional self.  Or maybe 
neither.  Am I a wave?  Or am I a particle?  Hard to tell.  Maybe a 
collection of patterns, static patterns, probability patterns.    I am NOT 
an entity that inherently exists, no such Marsha can be found.

The lock upon my garden gate's a snail, that's what it is...

> you wanted one,

Yes, I would like to see better where Buddhism and the MOQ agree.  They both 
agree there is no SELF.  I see patterns as conventional entitites.  I don't 
think that DQ relates to emptiness.  Static patterns of value are empty and 
are totally the product of conceptual thought.  The four levels are the 
product of conceptual thought.  The MOQ is a product of conceptual thought. 
Empty.  Empty.  Empty.  Empty.   I don't think the net-of-jewels model fits 
into the MOQ.   This bother me.

Marsha