[MD] Truth and the Linguistic Turn

[Marsha]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Krimel" <Krimel at Krimel.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Truth and the Linguistic Turn


> [Marsha]
> To see involves shape and color.  That's it.
>
> [Krimel]
> Seeing has nothing to do with shape and color. Those are things seen.
>
> [Marsha]
> It is erroneous to mistake patterns for things that exist in and of
> themselves.   Mostly we are socially indoctrinated with patterns from 
> birth
> to death.  The lucky ones detect and perceive original patterns.
>
> [Krimel]
> Patterns are matters of perception. We believe them to be reflections of
> TiTs. Indoctrination sounds like something maliciously coercive.
> Socialization is something parents and families do to welcome the young 
> into
> the fold. We can not live without it. Part of becoming and adult is 
> learning
> to understand these patterns at a higher level.

In the MOQ, there are no things in themselves.


> [Marsha]
> Experiences of highways, trees and rivers are subjective perceptions of
> appearances that are bound by contexts, or frames of reference.  What is a
> highway?  What is a tree?  What is a river?   Of course you should pay
> attention to the workings of your mind, but not accept its mistaken
> identity.
>
> [Krimel]
> What is the mistaken identity of my own mind supposed to mean? Tree and
> highways and rivers are what we agree they are. What "mistaken" identity 
> are
> you talking about? Is this more of the "everything you know is wrong"
> goobledygoook?

And you think everything you know is right?  Never mistaken?  No room for 
exploration?


>
> [Marsha]
> What would you have me investigate, a father god and the Old Testament?
>
> [Krimel]
> I would suggest looking into what we know about how the world works and 
> how
> we as beings gather knowledge. But at least looking into the father god of
> the Old Testament would provide some insight into how our culture works as
> opposed to studying the theology of a culture whose hermeneutics are 
> likely
> to remain forever opaque to you.
>

Geez, I don't see our culture working very well.  I see it in need of 
improvement.  Just for the record, there is no creator god in Buddhism.  I 
do not think it can rightfully be called a theology.


Marsha