[MD] Quick one: causation

[MarshaV]

At 03:06 PM 1/19/2009, you wrote:
> > >[Marsha]
> > >My meaning is that a thing does not inherently exist.  A thing exist
> > >based on convention.
> > >
> > >[Krimel]
> > >So what does "exist" or have inherent existence?
> >
> >[Marsha]
> >No thing inherently exists.  No thing exists from its own
> >side.  There is no thing-in-itself.  No thing has its own essence or
> >nature, etc.
> >
> >Entities exist by convention and are best represented as patterns,
> >ever-changing, interrelated, mutually dependent static patterns of value,
> >
> >[Krimel]
> >So for you, unless the cheese stands alone its existence is insignificant?
>
>Marsha
>No, spovs are not insignificant, but they are also not TiTs.
>
>[Krimel]
>TiTs are not TiTs because they have some form of existence independent of
>every other TiT. They are TiTs because whatever existence they have is
>independent of the perceiver. The idea of TiTs at least as Pirsig presents
>it in ZMM is a pretty mystical notion.

Krimel,

It is my understanding that a TiT is an object or event that has 
independent existence.  In the MOQ there are no things-in-themselves, 
and in Buddhism there are no things-in-themselves.  In both, there 
are no self and no objects.  Self and objects are best represented as 
ever-changing, interrelated, mutually dependent static patterns of 
value.  Please explain why do you have such a problem with this?


I do not understand the statement ending with "pretty mystical 
notion", and I don't understand your point in making it.


Marsha






.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is a 
reflection of all the others in a fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.