From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Nov 06 2003 - 16:43:35 GMT
Hi Scott (Bo mentioned)
> What I propose instead is to say that
> thinking (as opposed to thoughts) and perception (as opposed to what is
> perceived) be treated as variations on DQ/SQ, not just as SQ. One avoids
> dualism by treating DQ/SQ as a polarity, not as two independent realms.
> With the MOQ and with materialism there is no accounting for the sense
> of self. With the concept of polarity. the sense of self is recognized
> as a pole of a polarity, that is, as absolutely dependent on its
> opposite (the sense of non-self), and so one avoids its (the self's)
> reification (and the reification of non-self).
When you say "the sense of self is recognized as a pole of a polarity"
I wonder who is doing the "recognizing"? A higher self?
In holding up the sense of self and non-self for analysis, you seem to
positing "a Quality grand vista" as Bo might put it. I wonder how you
would describe the platform from which you can "see" the polarity of
which you speak?
Thanks,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 06 2003 - 16:42:14 GMT