[MD] self

[MarshaV]

X-man,

My definition of self agrees with my experience.  How does your experience of the self agree with the Ultimate?  


Marsha




On Feb 4, 2013, at 1:39 PM, X <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

> Only if  you're a rationalist. An empiricist can trace
> Concepts to their agreement with experience. Ala Hume.
> 
> MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> X-man,
>> 
>> In such a way a unicorn exists too.  
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:09 AM, X <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> The tetralemma can be addressed in this way
>>> We ask if the concept has meaning if it has value.
>>> If it has value we can say it exists.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 29, 2013, at 7:21 PM, MarshaV wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> But, X-man and dmb,
>>>> 
>>>> the definition in the previous post (below) represents a static interpretation, Ultimately:
>>>> 
>>>> One cannot say that the self exists. 
>>>> One cannot say that the self does not exist. 
>>>> One cannot say that self both exists and does not exist. 
>>>> One cannot say that the self neither exists nor does not exist.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ------------- 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 28, 2013, at 11:56 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Greetings X-man and dmb,
>>>> 
>>>> Here's my definition of the self:  the “self” is a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent static patterns value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality.   
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ___
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>