[MD] Language as trance

[MarshaV]

On Nov 19, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Platt Holden wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:29 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I think the Buddhist's would say that Conventional Reality is constructed
>> of interdependent truths (static patterns of value).   And I can see no
>> reason why some truths wouldn't be judged better than others.  Like the
>> Chinese behavior in Tibet: not good.   Compassionate behavior:  better.  
>> imho
>> 
> 
> I don't question your knowledge of the Buddhist view. I would simply
> observe
> the example you give maintains the definition that the symbol "morality"
> points to social behavior, i.e., immoral (not good), compassion (better).
> 
> As I've said, so long as the meaning of the word "morality" is confined to
> ideas of interpersonal relations -- to how we treat one another -- the MOQ
> cannot gain the wide acceptance it seeks. The term "morals" seems
> to erect a wall the MOQ is almost helpless to overcome except for we lucky
> few who challenge not only "Conventional Reality" but also
> conventional thought.
> 
> Perhaps instead of "Inquiry into Morality," the book in which the
> MOQ is laid out might have better been subtitled, "An Inquiry Into Why
> the Universe Got Better After the Big Bang."
> 


Hi Platt,   

My answer was not addressing the subtlety you were suggesting.  
I was addressing whether Buddhism accepted a reality of many.  I am 
not a Buddhist, but I believe Emptiness equates to Dynamic Quality, 
while conventional truths equates to static value.  Maybe the Buddhist 
'suchness' can be understood as similar to the MoQ's 'moral'.  They may 
represent the same experience, whether called a squiggle or a puff.  

But I am a mere student of both the MoQ and Buddhism, so I could be 
wrong.  


Marsha 
 
___