[MD] The MOQ and Death

[John Carl]

Sorry Steve, but Huh?


On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:22 AM, Steven Peterson <peterson.steve at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> John prev>
>


> > a fundamental belief in Quality leads me to think that the fact I'm right
> > here, right now is because it's a good idea.  If and when I'm gone,
> that's
> > good too.  I think the metaphysics of Quality helps one not worry so much
> > about oneself, because you're freed from believing so fiercely in this
> self.
> >  From being so attached to it.
>
>
>
Steve takes this to mean:


> I take this to mean that in order to transcend death, the self has to
> die. There is no immortality for the ego. What remains of you once the
> ego is gone? Emptiness and eternity--whatever the hell that means.
>
>

 Perhaps because the terms "self, death and ego" are definitions of
particular systems and in my system, the way you use those term doesn't
really make sense.

In my system, the self is an objectivized or intellectual construct and the
ego is what I attach my self to.  Thus if my ego is attached to a cause, and
the cause lives after my physical body is wormfood, then my ego cares a bit
less about the cessation of being.  The more "out there" that my ego
attaches, the less "in here" I regard as important.  These aren't hard and
fast discrete categories of being, but a sorta continuum.  A line along
which "I" choose to be.

But from where you seem to be coming, that probably doesn't make much sense
to you.

Oh well.

Thanks for asking anyway.  :)


John