[MD] Metaphysics

[markhsmit]

Hi Marsha,
My conception of self is that which is unchanging.

What changes is our bodies, brains, the way
we think, our memories, our passions, our
age, and our presence in this body.  

The self, however is everhere.  I know, at least
that I have had the same self since I was born.
The rest is everchanging.

Just thought I'd share since you did.

Mark

John, Mark,

Yes, I was talking about the nature of all patterns being 
conventional truth and not Absolute. Recognizing the 
conventional nature of static patterns of value is not to
assign them as being either subjective or objective. 
especially when one includes the self as a static pattern 
of value.

My understanding of self is a conceptual-flow of ever-changing, 
interrelated and interconnected, inorganic, biological, social 
and intellectual, static patterns of value responding to Dynamic 
Quality. 


Marsha 





On Jan 21, 2010, at 12:19 AM, markhsmit wrote:

> Hi Marsha, John,
> 
> [Marsha]
>> I think what is dangerous is not to understand the nature of
>> all static patterns of value. There lies the freedom to choose. imho 
> 
> [Mark]
> I think Marsha is referring to the Nature of patterns, not to the
> individual patterns themselves.
> 
> By your perception, or belief, John, Marsha's statement does not work,
> as you believe the subjective denies the objective. This is 
> similar to Ham's sensibility. Marsha believes in the objective,
> that is, what exists both within and outside of our experience.
> It is hard to debate when the fundamental tenants start at 
> different places. I suppose the debate should be who's
> starting point has more Quality. A subjective viewpoint
> can be argued to be more amoral. However, the objective
> view often tries to define morality.
> 
> Did morality exist before man? Is it a fundamental
> truth? MoQ would argue that it is.
> 
> Mark 

-------------

> I still don't quite understand Marsha,
> 
> I meant that if you are not invested or attached,
>> in them as representing an absolute, unchangeable,
>> independent Reality, then you can start
>> considering their value.
>> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean by this that static patterns of value exist completely apart
> from myself? I can't quite see how they could when it's by my choice of
> value systems that they exist for me in the form I perceive them at all.
> 
> I only know the true value of things I care most about! My caring and
> investment and attachment are the only way I know of expressing what I value
> and continuing to choose it.
> 
> "unchangeable doesn't make sense in the moment of perception, it only makes
> sense after time and something doesn't change. Or does.
> 
> If you mean something different, by all means please clarify, but if you
> mean what you say in your post, I'm gonna argue with you.
> 
> That used to be Lu's joking reference to "wait till your father comes home -
> he's gonna argue with you." My kids hated to argue with me, still do.
> 
> John feeling all fiesty...


_______________________________________________________________________

Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 







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/