Greetings Ham,
Here's the crux of the matter for me. There is the concept of an 'autonomous self' and the experience of a 'subjective perspective'. I have never found any autonomous self, but I do seem to experience a subjective perspective. Since I have not found an 'autonomous self' to exist, I find no reason to accept a self or reject it. Marsha On Oct 8, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Ham Priday 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 ___ 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
