[MD] Hoy stoves and those who sit on them

[Joseph Maurer]

On 3/22/10 6:33 PM, "Andre Broersen" <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
> Andre:
> He Joe. We accept the theory of evolution because it is a high quality
> idea with much explanatory power. In the presence of evolution essence
> makes no sense. Cannot exist. Essence means that somehing exists
> inherently, all by itself, from itself, of itself... i.e.
> independently, individually. (like self-contained little isolated
> islands)
> 
> This flies in the face of the 'scientifically' supported idea of
> evolution which, in Buddhist terminology is supported with the idea of
> 'co-dependent arising'. Nothing arises independently or individually.
> In other words, all is related and co-dependent. This idea is
> supported by the DQ/SQ of the MoQ. (Rememder Pirsig's amendment to the
> Descartes statement?)
 <snip>

Hi Andre and all,

I agree you don¹t get much clarity about ³essence² when you look at it all
by itself.   However, Œindividuality¹ strikes a note for ³essence² as a
level in existence.  When I was pondering evolution I accepted a hierarchy
of levels in existence.  ³Individuality² participates in all those levels.
Indeed, ³individuality² trumps DQ in every case where evolution proposes a
different individual level in existence.  The individual exists.  DQ exists
in the individual.  I was flabbergasted at the dependent role that DQ plays
to ³individuality².  There is no way of knowing DQ apart from the
³individual².

I don¹t expect this is a surprising development, but it sure was a surprise
to me.

Joe

> Cheers
> Andre
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html