Mark, Would you like another potato chip?
Marsha On Aug 21, 2011, at 12:03 PM, 118 wrote: > Hi Joe, Ham, Marsha, perhaps Ron, Arlo and whomever else is stuck in > this two dimensional web, > > Let's stick to logic for a second, for this is how philosophy works. > Let's not get caught up in semantic misdirection and consider what we > can logically create. > > When Joe speaks of emotions, he gets caught up in a self-referential > circle. He defines emotions as indefinable. Why are they > indefinable? Because they are emotions! I am not sure how far this > logic will take one. Logic is structure, it is something we build on > assumptions. Such structures can stretch to the stars, or down to the > atom. We always begin in the middle of these. > > Emotions, or as Ham prefers, pre-Rational sentiments, create > definitions. So we logically begin with "that which creates > definitions". Our assumption is therefore that there is something > which results in definitions and start the logical process. We can > call this assumption anything we like. > > From this assumption, we can logically work our way up into high level > math, or down into mystical realities. We can define such results as > Illusions, Delusions, Fantasy, Creativity, Evolution, Devolution, etc. > Let us assume that all these things are what we have. So I will > simplify all those words into one: Reality. Therefore in the first > instance, we have "that which creates Reality". I am of course > referring to our individual realities, or as Ham would state, our > "sensibilities". > > While I enjoy reading Ham's reflections on what he sees, I do not > agree with his assumption that "man is the measure of all things". I > would say that "all things are the measure of man". By this, I mean > that man operates within a world that is provided him. Man's > measurements are simply a byproduct of existing measurements. Man > harnesses these things and uses them for his own good. He cannot > create them. > > I am not sure who started this thread, but the nature of the subject > title seems to point to Marsha. The "agent" I would assume is similar > to Ham's agent. I did not have the time to read the quotes that > Marsha provided since I am more interested in personal contributions, > and I do not need to read another interpretation of the Diamond Sutra > written in English. I will say, however, that I disagree that the > Self can create thoughts or action. I therefore prefer Ham's > "witness". If somebody can demonstrate to me a logical or causal > connection between the Self (our unique personal awareness), and > thoughts (the action of the brain), I would most appreciate it. For > example, what is the mechanism by which the Self creates thoughts? > Where does this First Action lie? > > Best regards, I enjoy the posts. > > Mark > ___ 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/md/archives.html
