[MD] self: agent of action & thinker of thoughts

[MarshaV]

You bet it's worth a peanut!  


How about:

There once was a bee that sat on a wall,  
it said bzzzz, and that is all.  



Marsha 


On Aug 21, 2011, at 1:09 PM, 118 wrote:

> Marsha,
> 
> There was a young man who said tho'
> It seems that I know that I know
> What I would like to see
> Is the "I" that knows me
> When I know that I know that I know
> 
> Zen
> 
> That is worth at least a peanut
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 10:05 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>> Would you like another potato chip?
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 21, 2011, at 12:03 PM, 118 wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Joe, Ham, Marsha, perhaps Ron, Arlo and whomever else is stuck in
>>> this two dimensional web,
>>> 
>>> Let's stick to logic for a second, for this is how philosophy works.
>>> Let's not get caught up in semantic misdirection and consider what we
>>> can logically create.
>>> 
>>> When Joe speaks of emotions, he gets caught up in a self-referential
>>> circle.  He defines emotions as indefinable.  Why are they
>>> indefinable?  Because they are emotions!  I am not sure how far this
>>> logic will take one.  Logic is structure, it is something we build on
>>> assumptions.  Such structures can stretch to the stars, or down to the
>>> atom.  We always begin in the middle of these.
>>> 
>>> Emotions, or as Ham prefers, pre-Rational sentiments, create
>>> definitions.  So we logically begin with "that which creates
>>> definitions".  Our assumption is therefore that there is something
>>> which results in definitions and start the logical process.  We can
>>> call this assumption anything we like.
>>> 
>>> From this assumption, we can logically work our way up into high level
>>> math, or down into mystical realities.  We can define such results as
>>> Illusions, Delusions, Fantasy, Creativity, Evolution, Devolution, etc.
>>> Let us assume that all these things are what we have.  So I will
>>> simplify all those words into one: Reality.  Therefore in the first
>>> instance, we have "that which creates Reality".  I am of course
>>> referring to our individual realities, or as Ham would state, our
>>> "sensibilities".
>>> 
>>> While I enjoy reading Ham's reflections on what he sees, I do not
>>> agree with his assumption that "man is the measure of all things".  I
>>> would say that "all things are the measure of man".  By this, I mean
>>> that man operates within a world that is provided him.  Man's
>>> measurements are simply a byproduct of existing measurements.  Man
>>> harnesses these things and uses them for his own good.  He cannot
>>> create them.
>>> 
>>> I am not sure who started this thread, but the nature of the subject
>>> title seems to point to Marsha.  The "agent" I would assume is similar
>>> to Ham's agent.  I did not have the time to read the quotes that
>>> Marsha provided since I am more interested in personal contributions,
>>> and I do not need to read another interpretation of the Diamond Sutra
>>> written in English.  I will say, however, that I disagree that the
>>> Self can create thoughts or action.  I therefore prefer Ham's
>>> "witness".  If somebody can demonstrate to me a logical or causal
>>> connection between the Self (our unique personal awareness), and
>>> thoughts (the action of the brain), I would most appreciate it.  For
>>> example, what is the mechanism by which the Self creates thoughts?
>>> Where does this First Action lie?
>>> 
>>> Best regards, I enjoy the posts.
>>> 
>>> Mark
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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


 
___