From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Sat Jul 16 2005 - 15:36:08 BST
Mark SH.
Mark assumed:
Gentlemen. You are all assuming the reality of a transcendent
Source, then bending over backward to wedge it into your metaphysics.
The interesting psychological question is why?
Scott:
In my case, not transcendent, not immanent, not transcendent and immanent,
not neither transcendent nor immanent (and not, in my view, distinguishable
as a Source separate from a product, but I didn't want to get into that at
that point).
And it is interesting to ask why you see it as a psychological question. Are
we back to the "religion is for wimps" business? You don't accept the
possibility that God, or Nothingness, or the Tao, or whatever, might not
serve one as an intellectual hypothesis?
Scott previously:
I would say that we also cannot attribute to it Unity or "Oneness". It is
not One, not Many, not One and Many, not neither One nor Many.
msh 7-15-05:
Assumes the reality of [God], then precedes to talk about it in a way
that strikes me as, well, gibberish. Sorry, Scott.
Scott:
"It" in this case refers to God, because I was talking to Ham, who was using
the word. In talking to a Buddhist "it" would refer to Nothingness
(sunyata).
As to its striking you as gibberish, it is a straightforward application of
the Buddhist tetralemma, the cornerstone of 2000 years of Buddhist logic. If
you have a way of describing or explaining consciousness, or intellect, or
quality, in Aristotelian logic, I'm all ears.
- Scott
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 Jul 16 2005 - 22:34:42 BST