Sorry Ray, I cannot possibly deal with long
posts like this. The few paragraphs I did read were
totally incomprehensible to me... Oncc I retire
I'll have more time... meanwhile, if it is not
possible to sum it up, I have to leave it...
(I have to make a living... If anyone offers me some
money for discussing stuff on the net full-time,
please do, I think I just found my true vocation...)
Eva
>
> Eva Durant wrote:
>
> > >
> > > reality is a word symbol for what we believe is out there.
> >
> > no, it was/is/will be there whether we believe it or not.
> > By reality I mean the physical world and all it's past
> > present and future variable permutations.
> >
> > We have different perceptions and beliefs, but
> > as we are getting better at communication,
> > the overlapping bits are approximating the
> > real thing better and better.
> >
> > > When we die does
> > > that universe we believe continue or does the "out there" that may or may
> > > not be what we believe continue? If you call that reality then you must
> > > call what you believe it to be something else, right?
> > >
> >
> > Never occured to me to call reality all the
> > different beliefs people have, though hopefully
> > these converge to the reality I defined above
> > with time.
> >
> > Eva
> >
>
> Thanks Eva,
> well said,
>
> just a few things stirred by your words.
>
> Sounds to me like you are saying "your 'word' and 'reality' are 'one' and the
> 'word' is eternal."
>
> We say "the 'word' was the beginning for human consciousness and all words are
> human, including the word and concept 'reality'." What we call "reality" is
> a construct of the human consciousness to try to make some kind of system of
> that which seems external to us according to our senses.
>
> The word "reality" for me is the same as Plato's Cave. When we come out of
> the Cave we construct whole civilizations in "ideas" like clouds but the
> remnant from the Cave (the belief in objectivity) keeps us from being
> comfortable living in the clouds.
>
> The Christians construct a Heaven in the Clouds but then make it out of
> concrete. But the metaphor of the clouds speaks for a different state of
> being than the word "reality" defines. In that "reality" there is "object"
> relations.
>
> Amongst my people, life is a relationship that is not (human life vs. object)
> but (alive-alive) with different states of 'aliveness.' Each being master of
> their own consciousness. If you plant a human in the earth, like a carrot,
> the human dies but we call a carrot an object without consciousness because it
> can't talk. One of the problems I have on this list, sometimes, is that it
> feels like everyone is expected to be "carrots."
>
> For me, the whole concept of "objectivity" only has meaning as a transitional
> phase of pedagogy when humans break things apart to articulate them before they
> put them back together again. We do the same with the so-called "systems" of
> anatomy in the body when in "reality" (there's that word again) they are not
> separate and in fact the lymph system is so contrary even to the idea of
> systems that we ignore it's rules at our peril being much more comfortable with
> systems that stay in their own channels and don't mix. Of course apprentice
> Doctors make their mistakes on cadavers while apprentice economists practice on
> us. (As my pedagogy instructor said in college, "An MD's failures are left on
> the table while your's meets you in the streets, you had better learn your
> craft and succeed at it!")
>
> I think all we can say about what you seem to be calling "eternal reality" is
> that it seems, according to all human consciousness and exploration to "exist"
> i.e. that it "is." But beyond that everything is "up for grabs." I tend to
> accept the belief that the only way that existence can be described is
> metaphorically because anything you say about it is ultimately both true and
> untrue.
>
> So where does that put science? Truths are what you all have built your lives
> upon from your traditions. Truths are how you define your reality, (not
> necessarily the same as mine). Truths can be changed but must be moved slowly
> and with great respect. They are the "legs" for the stage where you dance your
> life. Balance is crucial. Truth is the realm of the Sacred. (The English
> word "Sacred" comes from the same root as "Sacrifice.") It is the struggle
> and the sacrifice that makes human life have growth and meaning and is
> intensely personal i.e. individual. It is this "will to grow and have
> meaning" that is the way we participate in the Sacred, a relationship, a dance
> if you will.
>
> Religion is not the same as the Sacred but constitutes a mass production
> ('scale' for all you economists) of individual facts so that groups can
> participate on the Truth level. However, there is an inherent oxymoron in
> the words Sacred Theology. That is why I love the Iroquois "Great Law."
> It begins by everyone admitting that this theology is an agreement between the
> people as to a group approach to the Sacred. This is where I believe
> Westerners with their Creeds ("This I believe") miss the boat. It is another
> Oxymoron. Group belief is not eternal but the Sacred or the Great Mystery is.
>
> There are many words for the Sacred, the Great Mystery, and we each
> participate, both as individuals and as groups through traditions that go back
> to the beginning of time (truths). This is a relationship that is highly
> significant in our individual and group paths, but ultimately there is little
> that is eternal that we discover. Most of our discoveries are only the realms
> of our own limitations. That is not, however, a bad thing. Truths are the
> closest that we have to the Eternal, the Sacred on the other hand there are
> Facts.
>
> Facts are mutual agreements and promote group change based upon growth and
> research. Facts are the realm of science and pedagogy. The problems for me
> with scientists is that they often don't "know their place"* and claim that
> their facts are "true."
>
> (*inappropriate for race relations but perfectly appropriate for professions in
> the tapestry of a human society.)
>
> Teachers, including Preachers, Mullahs, Rabbis etc. are even worse. All try
> to "sell" their "facts" as "truth" and when they do they have, according to
> what I was taught by the Judeo-Christians, committed idolatry. That is a tough
> one for them. I once asked a literal fundamentalist if idolatry extended to
> the bible and he quit his voice lessons. I made the same mistake a year
> later with a Rabbi/Cantor who annoyed me with his claim of cultural
> superiority. I asked him if one's relationship to their people could
> constitute "idolatry." He too left. Of course most of our words for our
> families has an emphasis on the article, i.e. "We are THE People."
> Ani-yvwia, the word that Cherokees call themselves means "Principle People."
> But my failure was in that the student didn't grow but killed the study. It
> didn't work. My facts were correct but my process was not. I didn't get past
> my own prejudices and into the areas of truth. Truth is less interested, IMO,
> with making someone wrong than it is in exploring the way we become and
> facilitating that.
>
> Perhaps an easy way to think on it, would be to use the metaphor of the Arts.
> In the Arts you have the exploration of the great complexities for their own
> value. We call this, the "Fine Arts". Some of these explorations are so
> complex as to be almost incomprehensible to the average person. But if
> studied, like the late Beethoven Quartets, they constitute the finest examples
> of human imagination within a particular medium.
>
> Then you have Crafts. They are practical and always have a purpose that is
> beyond themselves. Chairs are meant to be sat on, no matter how beautiful
> they are. There is Art in Craft but Art is not the point, the practical
> purpose of the Art is the point, the intent. Entertainment is largely
> Craft. Art that was made simply for profit is also Craft although sometimes
> the genius of an individual can include the search for the sublime within the
> use of the object (like certain portraits by the Masters). But ultimately
> craft is limited by the purpose of the object. Fine Art is not, but is
> expected to follow the sublime values wherever they lead. Like starting to
> make a chair but ending up with a sculpture that catches all of the meanings of
> sitting but has no use or utility as a chair.
>
> The Sacred is like Fine Art while Science is involved in Craft. What does
> this have to do with the Future or Work and all of the other human endeavors?
>
> 1. our environment that we create and propagate ultimately is the only way we
> have to control our own destiny because it shapes our perceptions and ideals.
> i.e. the future
>
> 2. to clarify the complexity is to see it diminish as our mastery increases.
> Mastery is to be found in a successful mutual relationship to the "All" and in
> clarity of communication within that relationship.
>
> REH
>
>
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
