Hi Ham, Marsha, First of all, thank you Ham, you are more eloquent than I.
Belief, which some call faith, lies in all those things that we do not try to divide up into static concepts and then question. Most of our daily lives consist of such faith. Only a very little becomes that voice in our heads. Value is derived from a place apart from that attentive part of our brains which seems to dominate our present endeavors (a place in the heart if you wish). We then say "I like that" if we are conversing with someone. Most of the time we do not think much about it. I would go as far as to say that your Value not only underlies belief, it is belief. There is no need to separate the two since that may cause confusion. The way in which Marsha uses static/dynamic is indeed prone to confusion. How about this analogy. The great ocean is deep. On its surface, there are waves which appear and then disappear. Our life here is brief, just another wave, but what is causing our waves lasts forever and is an integral part of us. So in this case, the dynamic represents potential (which is similar to your Essence), and our existence is the representation of such potential (your negation). With and understanding of Quality one can make inroads into a more meaningful existence. In fact, it can change one's whole daily behavior and attitude (gumption if you will). Does your belief in your metaphysics impact every moment of your daily life? Or, how about this, a book is static, the story it tells is dynamic. There is a relationship between the static and the dynamic, and both interact like the Yin and the Yang. Quality is the Circle which encompasses, Value is the interface between the static and the dynamic. (don't know if this works quite right, but I will leave it in for discussion). And let's not forget the soul, which is the white paper upon which the words of the book are written. Life plays on one's soul like music fills silence. Yes, personal value is relative to the person. However, what is creating that value, exists beyond the person. You have a formula of double negation, I simply call it Quality. Marsha, Dialectics. When Buddha stated there is no self, he is trying to move you away from your current belief, not saying that such a static concept is the way it is. This is the power of dialectics, finding the middle way. You have hung on to this ever-changing concept of Quality for some time now, I am waiting for the change in your belief since you claim to be ever-changing. The reason that you think things are changing is that you are stuck on static quality. You jump from one static thing to another and call that change. Based on where you are, I can say that Change does not exist in Quality. I would suggest that you consider the term "Ever-there" for a short break in your habits. Quality can not change, since there is no time for it to do so. That is, it exists outside of time. I will use the following example: All that you can experience is the ever-now. Even if you are having memories or planning for the future, that is done in the present. Such experience, which is Reality, happens in that timeless place, in the moment, not anywhere else, it can't. In the timeless moment, there is no change. The change you imagine is due to clinging to static qualities. Some things you seem to cling to more than others, those are the dangerous ones. To use time in the analogy, between every moment there is nothing. So, where are we between moments? How is it that you feel continuity in this existence? The Buddhists would say that you are being reincarnated at every moment. Thus your existence is preserved. Do you think this is possible, such reincarnation? Else-wise, how do you explain your seemingly continuous feeling of existence? Know Thyself, otherwise translated at "that thou art". I am not sure if you have read the book "The Perennial Philosophy" by a guy named Aldus Huxley. If not, give it a read, he can explain this better than I. What Socrates was stating is exactly the same thing that Buddha was stating. Hermes stated it long before either of them. Buddha's tact was to try to destroy the ego. Such ego is: believing we are our thoughts. Buddha did not try to destroy all the other things we are. This "No-Self" is directed at that voice in our heads to tame it. Once that is understood, one can still have existence of self, nothing changes there. Living in a world of no-self is like living in a world full of robots. The use of "No-Self" as a technique for awakening was fully developed in around 200 AD by Nagarjuna, as you know. This was not the only arrow in Buddha's trigger. His method for teaching changed depending on his student. But the technique was the same, and was one of dialectics. He would listen, and then present alternatives to counter act "false" beliefs. Socrates was said to have asked continual questions, with the same intent. That is, to educate towards meaning. Both of these people were just like you and me. They wanted to educate what they saw. The fact that such teachings have lasted a while emphasizes the kernel of a perennial form of thought. That is, a thought that has its roots way beneath the intellect (something that I call "deeper"), what some call the mythical. Our thoughts do not just arrive superficially when we are trying to communicate them within the social level. Our thoughts are much more expansive than the words which we put to them and are closer to emotions in nature (one point for Joe). On his deathbed, Buddha was said to have encouraged his followers to be free from words, for that is an easy way to be free and move towards Nirvana. Of course MoQ states the same thing as an underlying theme (static quality). So next time you present your Ever-Changing Theory, think about it, and move past it. All in my humble opinion, of course. Cheers, Mark Mark On Oct 8, 2011, at 2:09 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 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
