> [SA previously]
> These Tits... and Maya, think of this, too, as
> follows: Who are we to say what is illusion, what
is objective,
> [Krimel]
> We generate the illusion or the illusion is
> generated in us. It is ours and
> we can call it what we will.
I agree. This is what was hinted to me when I
read your post that had me respond this way. Maya is
truly an illusion in one culture, but I say an
illusion of what? For according to science this
illusion can be known and understood in certain ways,
so how can these repeated knowings found in science be
an illusion? These perspectives are in accord with a
premise founded in a way in which we are to view the
world and then certain cultures or ways of knowing go
from there. Maya is true. Science is true. It is,
as what has been discussed here before, depending on
the context.
> [SA previously]
> and just because something is not readily
> pumped through our heart, such as a tree branch, how
> does this make a tree branch isolated and barbaric?
>
> [Krimel]
> If a tree branch got pumped through my heart I don't
> reckon I would be calling it anything past, "Oh
crap, how'ed that
> happ..."
This is, I guess, in reference to how can we know
anything independent of our individual self. In this
context, the only way to allow a tree branch to be
part of a reality that does not depend upon our
individual self would be to pumped a tree branch
through our heart, and that's impossible and live
through it, so, a tree branch would easily be unreal
in that context.
> [SA previously]
> Am I seeing old perspectives here when Tits are seen
> as non-reality? Or, am I mixing Micah's strict
> individuality, and these 'others' up? These
> 'others' in politics are barbarians (old SOM
perspective), in
> religion it is illusion, in philosophy it can be a
> tree can't be real cause it is outside my skin? Is
> this making sense to anybody else?
> [Krimel]
> For some what is in dispute is the fact of the tree.
> The fact of the illusion is that for each of us the
TiT tree
> coalescences into a pattern of
> associations and experiences that form our
> understanding of the tree.
So, what your saying here, is that some, and
maybe for you, not sure though, 'fact of a tree' v.
'understanding of tree' are in conflict. Maybe? The
conflict would be how well are we suited to accept
change, such as changing perspective. I could very
well perceive from both of these 'kinds of tree' fact
v. understanding, and whichever one of these
perspectives is real and not real doesn't really have
to disrupt my life. At least I don't think so, unless
as I'm venturing along using one of these
perspective's I find one of these perspectives leading
me along a path that is full of danger (the intellect
enacting the duties of society, biology, etc...) and
such a perspective, if dangerous, would I notice the
danger and find a way to veer out of such a
perspective? Hope so, and thus, an exercise in
intellect is helpful.
night,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
