[MD] reifying carrots

[MarshaV]

Andre,

Here's some textual evidence for you consider.

In Buddhism there is the term 'anatta', no-self:

One cannot say that the self (I) exists. 
One cannot say that the self (I) does not exist. 
One cannot say that self (I) both exists and does not exist. 
One cannot say that the self (I) neither exists nor does not exist.


Some MoQ quotes:

"An example of sammuti-sacca [conventional (relative) truth, or static quality] is the concept of self. Pirsig follows the Buddha’s teachings about the ‘self’ which doesn’t recognise that it has any real existence and that only ‘nothingness’ (i.e. Dynamic Quality) is thought to be real. According to Rahula, the Buddha taught that a clinging to the self as real is the primary cause of dukkha (which is usually translated as ‘suffering’).  Having said this, Rahula (1959, p.55) makes it very clear that it’s not incorrect to ‘use such expressions in our daily life as ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘being’, ‘individual’, etc’ as long as it is remembered that the self (like anything else conceptualised) is just a useful convention."
     (McWatt, MoQ Textbook)


"A theme prevalent in Nishida’s ‘concrete logic’ (as well as the MOQ and much of Buddhist thought), is the recognition of the ‘self’ as just a useful abstraction."
     (McWatt, MoQ Textbook)

 
"This fictitious 'man' has many synonyms; 'mankind,' 'people,' 'the public,' and even such pronouns as 'I,' 'he,' and 'they.' Our language is so organized around them and they are so convenient to use it is impossible to get rid of them. There is really no need to. Like  'substance' they can be used as long as it is remembered that they're terms for collections of patterns and not some independent primary reality of their own."
     (LILA, Chapter 12)
 

"This Cartesian 'Me,' this autonomous little homunculus who sits behind our eyeballs looking out through them in order to pass judgment on the affairs of the world, is just completely ridiculous. This self-appointed little editor of reality is just an impossible fiction that collapses the moment one examines it. This Cartesian 'Me' is a software reality, not a hardware reality. This body on the left and this body on the right are running variations of the same program, the same 'Me,' which doesn't belong to either of them. The 'Me's' are simply a program format.

"Talk about aliens from another planet. This program based on 'Me's' and 'We's' is the alien. 'We' has only been here for a few thousand years or so. But these bodies that 'We' has taken over were around for ten times that long before 'We' came along. And the cells - my God, the cells have been around for thousands of times that long." 
   (LILA, Chapter 15)   


Annotation 29: “The MOQ, as I understand it, denies any existence of a “self” that is independent of inorganic, biological, social or intellectual patterns. There is no “self” that contains these patterns. These patterns contain the self. This denial agrees with both religious mysticism and scientific knowledge. In Zen, there is reference to “big self” and “small self.” Small self is the patterns. Big self is Dynamic Quality."
     (RMP, Lila’s Child)


Annotattion 77:  "It's important to remember that both science and Eastern religions regard "the individual" as an empty concept. It is literally a figure of speech. If you start assigning concrete reality to it, you will find yourself in a philosophic quandary".
   (RMP, Lila’s Child)

 
"The MOQ, like the Buddhists and the Determinists (odd bedfellows) says this “autonomous individual” is an illusion." 
     (RMP, Copleston)


Marsha 


On May 8, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Marsha said to Andre:
> 
> I am more interested in free, open-ended discussions.
> 
> Andre:
> Yea, non committal, speak as you flow, blow as you feel. At least one American had his eyes on the ball when they needed to be kept there:
> "There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
> But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate
> So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late". (Bob Dylan)
> 
> The 'you and I" you do not understand because, as you maintain, there is no 'you' nor "I". Wonderfull! Fantastic! Great! And that is how we are going to get a little bit more moral feeling in this world eh? A little more care, compassion and reasonableness?
> 
> And you are seriously questioning the existence of this world???. You do not have an eye or ear or feeling for the pollution, the killing, the misery, the suffering of this world? You are talking falsely Marsha. Stop bothering us with (Western)Buddhist quotes. Start living and commit yourself...otherwise ...your discussions are non-discussions. You are in up-sie-daisy land. Which is diagonally opposite MOQ perspective.
> 
> I really don't know why I bother but I am sure you wriggle yourself out of this one...for your SELF!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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