[MD] Margaret Thatcher?

[MarshaV]

Hi Joe,

On Apr 17, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:

> Hi MarshaV and All,
> 
> "'The individual' is an empty concept."  In a format of DQ/SQ metaphysics is
> DQ an empty concept?  Indefinable does not mean "empty".  The theory of
> knowledge has to be tweaked to account for the indefinable.
> 
> Joe

About an independent existing self:

“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, Annotation 29)

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

--- 
 
Marsha:
Do you mean "empty" as in 'empty of independent existence'?  In what way would you suggest knowledge needs to be tweaked.  Direct perceptual awareness and abstracted patterned concepts represent two types of knowledge.  But then there is Dynamic Quality which is undivideable/unpatterned.   Or do you mean something else?   
 
 
Marsha 
 

 
 





> 
> 
> On 4/17/13 1:09 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> ³It¹s important to remember that both science and Eastern religions regard
>> Œthe individual¹ as an empty concept. It is literally a figure of speech. If
>> you start assigning a concrete reality to it, you will find yourself in a
>> philosophic quandary.²