Path: utzoo!hoptoad!uunet!tektronix!tekgen!tad
From: tad@tekgen.TEK.COM ((Thomas A. Dowe))
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Def'n of individualism
Summary: How?
Keywords: definitions, individual
Message-ID: <2684@tekgen.TEK.COM>
Date: 3 Apr 88 12:16:36 GMT
Expires: 7 Apr 88 07:00:00 GMT
References: <3386@dasys1.UUCP> <2146@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <2523@bsu-cs.UUCP> <1281@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> <11046@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: tad@tekgen.UUCP (Thomas A. Dowe)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 21



Defining individualism(?)  An oxymoron; terrific example.

However, I feel comfortable, at times, with generalizations.  So, let's
define individualism as--no definition.  With the individual, the sum is
certainly greater, etc.

"No-definition".  Thereby, and therefrom, making the "individual" the
Tao, darhma/dahhma, zen, etc., etc. (etc., etc... here is a chance for
an editor type to correct my grammar.)  You know, like--"MU".

Of course, "realization" of "no-definition" would meld an individual with
*[(WHAT?)]*, and, supposedly, erase the "individual" part.  So, it looks
like meditation and other religious practices would certainly be anti-indiv-
idualism; don't you think?  Now politics...
-- 
-- 
Tad Dowe
tad@tekgen.UUCP
MS 19-434, Tektronix, PO Box 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-7705