HI Ham, Thought I heard some flies buzzing around during our exchange.
I have no problem with timidity if recognized as such. What perhaps I hear from you is a need for control. A need to be the source of all. Underlying the need for control is basic fear. Why do you think we try to control, and predict? It is all based on fear. It is fighting the phantoms of the unknown. This is why science is so important, so that we can temporarily disperse that fearful feeling. Why do you think all the righteous posts are dictating the "truth". Without such distraction, fear creeps in. No, MoQ is not just another religion (I hear), it is so much more. The fear of religion shines through. Tho through the valley of death I walk, I will fear no evil. As Kirkegaard would say, one has to die unto death. The road to positivity indeed! Where is your road leading you? Me? I'm as free as a bird, and this bird you cannot change. (Don't forget the guitar solo). Humility, Mark Hey, Mark -- > I do agree with you (at least I agree with what I understand > you to say), that our perception of reality is our creation. > It has to be. Then why don't you believe it? > It is called humility, and with it comes great power. Nothing personal, Mark, but I suggest that "timidity" is a more accurate descriptor of your belief system. Peter McWilliams said: "The road to positivity is strewn with the abandoned vehicles of the faint-hearted." Courage, Ham _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ On Jan 30, 2010, at 1:33:36 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > Finally, if (as I believe) the physical universe is a construct > of man's value-sensibility, its order, design and dynamics > are representative phenomena of human intelligence, in which > case the terms "randomness" and "determinism" are meaningless. > For, if we cannot predict what the future will bring, > how can we possibly know that our "free choices" are not > predetermined? [Mark]: > I know you have stated the above before. But, for whatever > reason, something clicked. Although this may not be what you > are talking about, when I look at the interface between my (man's) > brain/body, and what is outside, there is creation at work. > We could say that this is man-made mind. We actually perceive > so little of the physical universe, which at our level of sensibility > actually appears solid (while it is not). I'm glad something clicked. But you're still hung up on a physical universe. Think of the universe as a "world of appearances" which you yourself intellectualize from sensory experience. It is your world, your reality, the object of your subjectivity. What you see as beautiful is what you value as beauty. What you admire as intelligent reflects your intellectual values. The morality you aspire to is what your sensibility values as good and virtuous. > So, I do agree with you (at least I agree with what I understand > you to say), that our perception of reality is our creation. > It has to be. Now, this is not new to me, as all along > I have been firm in my commitment in that our belief systems, > whatever they are, are personal creations. I have brought our > infatuation with science into that same subjective belief. So, > perhaps we are closer than thought. I have trouble with the word > Essence, possibly because I am looking for something, which > I believe would be impossible. > > However, having said that, I would still posit that each and everything > and cluster of things, also creates it's own reality by its own > perception. That is from a neutrino to a supernova. These are not > human perceptions, but there is nothing special about my bag > of chemicals. There can't be, unless we are somehow special. > Of course, you wouldn't be the first person to say that. If you can't think of yourself as "special", try thinking of someone you regard as special. Or think of the achievements of mankind throughout history. Surely there is something very special about human interaction with the world, as compared with any other species or entity. In a valuistic (qualitative) sense, the universe is an anthropocentric system whose form, qualities, and attributes are defined by man's experience and measured in terms of his value-sensibility. Being itself is a construct that you "create" valuistically. Things ("in themselves") don't have to "perceive" values inasmuch as their existence is the result of YOUR value sensibility. As you yourself said, "our perception of reality is our creation. It has to be." Exactly! So why don't you believe it? Cheers, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
