Hi Marsha, Mark --
On Oct 8, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Mark 118 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Marsha,
This is not a question of existence, it is about belief. Existence as
presented
is a static concept. Belief is much deeper than that.
[Marsha responds]:
No, it is not a question, it is a tetralemma. There is
Value(Dynamic/static).
I have no idea how you define or assign "deeper than that".?
May I intercede here. Marsha? The Tetralemma is a four-sided dilemma, which
is questionable if only for logical reasons.
Perhaps Mark was suggesting that the reality you believe in is more
significant than the reality you experience, BECAUSE of the Value your
belief adds to it.
Awareness consists of more than factual knowledge. We are aware of the
world as we "believe it to be." Belief (i.e., personal conviction) is what
gives it Value. Belief can be influenced by a number of factors -- sensory
experience, logical reasoning, pragmatic reliability, scientific
predictability, philosophical postulates, religious doctrines, etc. But
once you believe something to be true, it becomes an integral part of your
"worldview", your awareness of reality. Likewise, whatever you believe to
be false is excluded from your conscious worldview.
Therefore, you cannot reasonably believe in something whose reality is
ambiguous, that is, an entity or principle which is neither true nor false.
Claiming to hold such a belief is either self-deceptive or disingenuous on
your part. That's why Mark said that "staying on the raft of To Be or Not
to Be misses the point." It misses the point of a philosophical conception,
a maxim to live by, or a cogent belief system.
Personally, I find the vernacular of "dynamic/static" and "direct/indirect"
as it applies to reality not only confusing but inconsistent with
experience. However, if these terms have meaning to you, by all means
"embrace the dynamic." And thanks for serving up the precious Hamlet
observation, "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it
so." It supports Ham's moral concept that all Value is relative to the
sensible subject.
I also believe one should live by his/her convictions.
Good subject, Mark. A philosophy that doesn't acknowledge selfness is
meaningless.
Valuistically yours,
Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Of course it is appropriate to bring in static concepts such as physics (I
do it all the time) as a raft to cross the river. Once across, the raft
is left behind. Staying on the raft of To Be or Not to Be misses the
point, IMO.
Well, that's interesting... It's always nice to be served a little Hamlet
with a post. Here "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes
it so.."
MoQ is not a bridge between awarenesses, it is awareness in and of itself.
Steve Hagen's statement reflected the Buddha emphasizing how the Buddha
summarized his teaching using the word 'awareness' because you seemed to
state it was by using dialectics. You compared him to Socrates. The words
I find most inspiring from Socrates were the words he got from the Pythia's
temple in Delphi, "Know thyself."
Drop the static, embrace the dynamic. Not with words but with actions.
Leave that raft behind and start walking.
I suggest the same for you. Or as Steve Job stated "Stay hungry, stay
foolish."
Cheers,
Mark
Love,
Marsha
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
