From: Simon Magson (twix_570@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Oct 02 2004 - 20:14:28 BST
Scott Roberts wrote:
>The MOQ says that I am a set of inorganic, biological, social, and
>intellectual SQ, capable of responding to DQ. I disagree with this
>definition, preferring to think of myself as a locus of DQ/SQ interaction.
What's the difference?
>In my view, the MOQ definition is inadequate to the mystery of the self, in
>particular, it seems to me overly dualistic, that there is me here, and DQ
>coming from other than me.
Both 'me' and 'other than me' are static differentiations therefore neither
can apply to DQ. The MOQ is not dualistic in this sense i.e., the SOM sense.
Also, I think it denies creativity, and the
>ability to make choices, on the part of the self.
>
>But since I consider the self to be an irreducible mystery, one should not
>think my definition solves any of your questions.
The self is no mystery to Buddhism, it was rejected thousands of years ago
as a meaningful philosophical concept. Have you ever experienced your
'self'? It only 'appears' when you try and write something down to describe
experience.
"DQ/SQ interaction" is
>just another name for the mystery. My complaint with the MOQ definition is
>that in "solving" the mystery, it reintroduces dualism, if not theism.
Dualism, maybe, but not in an SOM way. Theism? Nonsense. The MOQ is as
theistic as Buddhism i.e., not at all.
SM
_________________________________________________________________
Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
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 : Sat Oct 02 2004 - 20:37:35 BST