Rich, although I can feel people saying "don't push him any farther", I must
admit I appreciate your humour AND your ideas!
I'm not sure if you read it, but I proposed a solution for "I" that is along
this discussion. Mystics say "I" doesn't exist because it is not something
experienced. Materialists say "I" doesn't exist because they can not find it
under a microscope. But an "external something" vs. direct experience duality
puts the notion of "I" together.
When one assumes that there is a structure or "something" apart from experience,
"I" becomes the collection of everything experienced!? When there is an
assumption of a "you", a box of Cheerios, or what the hell ever, there
immediately becomes a "me". My experiences. My thoughts. My feelings. My damn
Cheerios!
Get it?
I think this is important. Would you agree that we are sometimes too
"objective" here? "Dynamic this... static that." We need to be more
introspective and personal!
?
> Silly Goose! Of course you're right, because what you wrote had quality,your
> intent was good, you have gumption, good morals...
> Although, you might not exist.
>
Actually, you are right. I don't exist. Please disregard what was just said.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:09 BST