Hi Marsha, I suppose you are speaking theoretically. From your posts it is clear that you believe that an autonomous self exists. Trust your intuition above your logic, it is much more real.
Mark On Oct 9, 2011, at 12:10 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 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
