--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" > <j_alexander_stanley@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > And/or -- parallel to greeks -- Hericlitus? -- its ever changing. It > > > has no permanence. Its here today, gone tomorrow. How can one give > > > that the status of "real". > > > > That is precisely the anti-relative perspective that I'm talking about. > > That you see that as anti- anything is interesting.
To me, to say the relative isn't real is to devalue it. > > And, just because something changes means it's therefore not real? > > Its not a real as something permanent. > > And you appear to view everything as changing. Its a view where > identity continues with a new form. I tend to look at it differently. > The carrot on my plate is no longer thre. You can continue to call it > a carrot as it moves through my bowels, is processed in a sewage > plant, and is scattered who knows where. i tend to say that THAT > carrot not longer exists. For a few months it was here. Over the > last6 billion years, most of the time it was not. Perhaps "real" > is not the best word to descibe that. Unsubstantial? Not as > substantial as a sequoia redwood. Or a glacier. Or the earth. > Or the universe. And even all of those emerge then die. None as > substantial as that which remains. I agree that substantial is a better word than real, but, are you equating substance with value? I.e., do you attach more value to that which changes less? 'Cuz IMO, the split-second smile of a child can be every bit as valuable as a mountain that has stood for millions of years. > But that doesn't not mean i am anti-carrots. I love them. And I love > films. Though I know they are an illusion. I love many things that > come and go. Why would owning up to their impermanence have anything > to do with not liking them? That you apparently find anyone who sees > things as impermanent or an illusion as being anti- that thing is > both surprising and interesting. Again, this goes back to the use of "real". I think to declare the relative as unreal is to devalue it, and devaluing is, IMO, anti. And, I think devaluing the relative is what leads to toxic religious dogmas that declare our humanness to be sinful and that normal desires should be repressed. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
