What gets left out in that picture is the power of mind.
how subject/object is interelated.
I beg you, please,
to draw the distinction between a mind that constructs a World,
and a World a mind constructs.
Dennis: this is why a sense of an inherently existing, immutable self is considered wrong view.
a person and a World can be transformed.
a spiritual life is possible.
if a self was fixed, immutable, transformation would be impossible.
A quality I find perfection in is generosity.
Not so much handing out material comfort.
This, too. What "immutable" self? Its existence and its mutablity are not mutually exclusive.
Dennis: you're not the only one reading this.
dasein or personhood or self appears to exist in and of itself and people worry of annihilating it.
what has to be shown is it's changing nature.
in relation to the situation
Dennis: a personhood has attributes, it's a thing.
Dennis: generosity is a higher calibre attainment that generates harmonious relations and changes World for the better in as much as harmonious relations and 'better World' can be called forth.
Pye wrote:Matter and energy appear to have risen together (or better yet, have always been present as long as there has been presence [being]), so I am disinclined to imagine one to come before the other, as much as I am disinclined to separate them but for the most conventional of sakes. Particle or wave; thing or motion; so long as our local understanding of physics indicates that neither can be (re)created or destroyed, we are looking at eternity, we are looking at everything even if we cannot see it all at once or from any other point of view.
Laird: but what I was trying to get at is that there could be a temporal or some other causal sense in which the material aspect to existence is a consequence of the spiritual aspect, so that in some sense "pure spirit" is "behind" the existence that we currently experience . . .
Pye: You can have it that way if you want, Laird, if you want there should be something “unreasonable” about the world . . . . but I‘d be inclined in return to ask why matter must be preceded rather than included in the wonders of being . . . . What would make existence more “valuable” to you in believing spirit – a spirit, energy, what-have-you – does the initial creating out of nothing?
Pye wrote:It could be said, Laird, that things have properties to them, but only if these phenomena are played out in existence, are manifest as properties. It could be said that it takes certain circumstances (causes/conditions) for properties to display themselves, but this only happens in tandem with those causes/conditions. If this "property" of something never makes an appearance, how can we assume such a "property" exists in the phenomena?
It's like this: here's a very very heavy object. Just this object itself, all by itself. You might say of such a thing it has the property of gravity to it (inside" it? "hidden"? etc?). But if there is no space for the weight of this object to bend, or no other objects to slide toward it, then where exactly does this "property" reside?
What makes you think I believe what I believe because I want to make existence more valuable to myself? That's not how I form my beliefs. :-)
I had a dream.
You know, Dennis, when I think about our situation and the possibilities of reason; when I think of reason's capacities, qualities, its playing-out similar to your self; when I think of the results of such a curriculum, an education, where one has always the possibility of fluid understanding with self and other, well, pardon me if it seems to look so much, seems to resemble the movements-of, the concrete actions-of; seems overall, this reason, this understanding, this possibility, well, it seems to me to be pointing to nothing other than love . . . . in its profoundest expression of inter-relationality, being-with . . . .
Dennis: Love has got those connotations of clinging and attachment and strings attached, so that won't do.
how do you keep the mutual mutualing.
To commit and generate for the time being in the face of all things pass.
To have it not break down.
Pye wrote:For now, Laird, and for myself, I find it nearly impossible to separate values-held from beliefs.
Pye wrote:So how do you form your beliefs?
guest_of_logic wrote:By experiencing, observing, reading and generally gathering data/evidence, and then evaluating what the most likely implications of all of that are. It's not easy! Experiences and data can be confusing and seemingly contradictory, not to mention that it's sometimes difficult to judge the trustworthiness of third-party data. It's a challenge to develop a consistent set of beliefs in this way. And, of course, the evaluation is partly subjective, which isn't to say that it's based on values, but there may be a tenuous link there: perhaps there are "predicates" or at least antecedents common to both one's values and the subjectivity in one's evaluative processes. Perhaps this is something like what you meant.
what's the point of a belief?
what is it for?
what does it do?
Dennis: there's no hope of conscious contact through the narrowing of consciousness that an ingrained belief structure entails.
Pye: So how do you form your beliefs?
Laird: By experiencing, observing, reading and generally gathering data/evidence, and then evaluating what the most likely implications of all of that are.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Now will be a good time to describe your communication with the spirits and how you derived existence and validation from a set of subjective experiences. In many cases the details are crucial in understanding the kind of evaluation at work. For example one could go through many subsequent steps to arrive at an evaluation but if one crucial error is made along the way, all other steps will be just as erroneous as the one relatively small misstep. This is a harsh law of logic.
Pye wrote:That said, I am aware you could mean your beliefs to rest upon data/evaluation not as beliefs at all, but as . . . . knowledge? So for you, knowledge = beliefs? . . . just asking. It'd be important to have that clear :)
This you have said here is not a non-point of view, or a non-belief, non-viewpoint, non-gathering, or any other non-what-have-you at all. One cannot think this belief about beliefs is of nothing or of no point itself, so you can look into what this very thought is doing-for you, the what's-the-pointing of itself in yourself for your answer. I don't know, maybe this thought, or rather, the belief it's grounded upon helps keep you from imploding or something? - sounds "right" about the world to you? - what's it's what-ness, Dennis, because it can't be nothing . . . .
I think most folks are in bad faith with themselves when they remand the temporal to the nothing/why bother. I think most are lying when they declare of no-value something that infuses their every moment with its perfect piquancy, its nearby breath.
Laird: is more than a mere (consequence of a) biological entity; that it has spiritual components which can separate from it, most likely surviving the death of the biological body. This suggests a design to life, and a layer of reality which exists "independently" of "material" existence, and which precedes it (again, granting that this "spiritual" vs "material" dichotomy is a somewhat unwieldy one, especially given my lack of knowledge by which to cut a fine distinction, or even to clearly explain the nature of "the spiritual").
I suspect that you probably wouldn't even recognise/acknowledge/accept the types of energy/matter that I would refer to as "spiritual existence" - not that I'm by any means knowledgeable about them myself.
That's a belief you hold.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest