[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Mark,


> [Mark] When I am busy, I look for the posts that say Hi Mark, or something
> like that.  On gmail I can only see about the first 6 words.
> Sometimes when I have more time I go back and look at others, but I
> have lots of unread email in the box.  I will keep a look out for
> rapsncows and at least open those.

[Tim]
I try to make sure that the first word in all my emails is the name of
the person I'm addressing foremeost...  But it's all good.

>
> 
> [Mark]
> Yes, it means there is a "tryer" in there somewhere.  Maybe there is a
> head neuron or something.  Like a five star general directing
> everything, that is the "I".  Doesn't make sense to me though.

[Tim]
I guess that is why I re-appropriated the word faithful.



> [Mark]
> (Quote deleted)  I think it is possible to conceptually conceive of
> the loss of SOM at all times, but it is difficult to communicate that
> way. [SNIP]

[Tim]
hmmmm.  I don't know.  For me, I cloak everything with a bit of
'unknown', and this seems sufficient to keep me from thinking that my
understanding of subjects and objects is perfect - and, I think this
keeps me open to the unifying Quality.  But, what do I know?  Perhaps I
am missing the boat.



> 
> [Mark]
> OK, now I remember what you are talking about.  Wouldn't some of those
> "I"s be objective rather than subjective?

[Tim]
which I's?  Other people, or the internal aspects of each I?


> [Mark]
> My guess is that weirdness is the biological response.

[Tim]
I wonder what Ham would say...?  I don't think of it as mainly a
biological response though.  I mean, when I was younger and not so into
metaphysics (or whatever), I might have thought of death as more a
biological thing, and then I might have agreed.  Now...  Well, I'll keep
my mouth shut on this for now.  Well, one thing, one of things I have
been thinking.  My 'I' is empowered to give its choice reality, via
will, in the material world.  If, to make the concept somewhat concrete,
I think that my 'material-I' is more a pattern of energy distribution
than a solid, material, body (of course the solid body is a large part
of that energy pattern), then, just like what RMP describes of Chris'
death in ZAMM, that energy distribution does not cease to perform the
will I imparted when by body dies.  I can think of following the
ramifications of my willful choices until the end of the universe (or
whatever), before my 'I' can be defined fully by reality.  Anyway, my
point is that the weirdness isn't a mere biological response, it is
certainly metaphysical, intellectual, conceptual.  It is weird enough
for us to come to any sort of agreement about being an 'I' - and leads
me to reincarnate a word like faithful; thereafter I don't see how it
can be ...

> [Mark]  There are ways
> to get over that.  The after is the same as the before.  Wasn't so bad
> was it?  In many ways it is important for us not to be controlled by a
> fear of impending death.  Of course there is also Toltec spirituality
> such as presented by Carlos Castaneda that states we should always be
> conscious that death is right over our shoulder.  He was talking about
> Warriors and such.  I am no warrior (at least not yet).

[Tim]
a good example of books I enjoyed but forgot.  about fear of death, as
difficult as it is to imagine what death means to the 'I', the idea of
no death seems worse.  I am stuck hoping that it is meaningful - or that
such a thing as forever can be made a lot better than I can imagine!  My
point is that either way it is really weird, so I see no need to think
about it.

> 
> >> [Mark]
> >> Certainly there are things that we call absolute, or unchanging.  One
> >> could be the other side of life for example.  It is hard with our current
> >> available senses to really conceive of these things, and change is
> >> easier.  Perhaps change is absolute, or energy is absolute, or the use of sex in
> >> Hollywood.  Who knows?
> >
> > [Tim]
> > what do you mean by 'the other side of life'?
> 
> [Mark]
> The Absolute

[Tim]
This sounds like the Ham-ian absolute.  Ham and I are at opposite
extremes there.  My absolute is a minimal source.  His is a maximal - as
I understand it.  I think that his absolute is equivalent to my
'impossible', or my 'nothing', from which my 'something-is' is
precluded.  I think that something-is can approach that boundary, but
never attain it.  Anyway, my point is that I think that such an 'other
side of life' is an illusion.  But this is not to say that there is no
other side!
 

> [Mark]
> It would seem to me that the best we can do is create something that
> is meaningful.  When we enter into that, then we don't need to think
> about it anymore.  I think this is what religions or philosophies
> similar to religions do.  I don't know, because I am still creating
> mine.
> 
> Mark
> >

[Tim]
well, I still think that the best we can do will be social in character:
justice.

Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own