[MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ

[X Acto]

Marsha:
If you want me to reread part of ZMM or LILA, at least point to a chapter.

In this recent book I read on the pre-Socratic sophists, it verified you
rational/irrational split. Before Plato and Aristotle all was in
relationship to social level and multiple truths were quite possible.  Only
with Aristotle did the either/or become rational and all else irrational.
Even now Ron, silly boy, accuses me of being irrational as if he doesn't
understand I see that as a sign of intelligence. And I have been quite clear
at confirming that I understand the Intellectual Level to represent the
subject/object split.  

For the moment, I'm wondering if the problem is not rooted in the
self/object duality.  While the subjective vales are allegedly missing in
the Intellectual Level, what of the illusionary self.  This 'self' is what
Buddhism so adequately addresses, and is the most difficult for the West to
consider, imho. The quality event creates both self and object even if it is
within an intellectual patterned event. The self becomes an existing
abstract 'thinking being' that is manipulated with the rest of the patterns.
Do you think it would be worth giving a little thought to 'self' versus
'subjective values'? 


Ron:
I am a silly boy, and I simply do not agree with either of you.

I did'nt mean that you are irrational, and if I used that term
I used it incorrectly in regard to what I mean. I mean that your statements
and arguements seldom have any sort of consistancy in meaning.

I think, to assume that s/o is THE intellectual level is kinda like assuming
english is THE language of intellect.

As I have said, many many times in the past, Bo' assertions are relavant to
western culture, but to assume western cultural values are universal, is 
making a dire mistake in my opinion.

I feel its culturaly chauvanistic not to mention anthropomorphic.