Marsha, There was a young man who said tho' It seems that I know that I know What I would like to see Is the "I" that knows me When I know that I know that I know
Zen That is worth at least a peanut Mark On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 10:05 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > 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
