[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[John Carl]

Hey Mark and Ham,

Ham:


> > The conclusion we can draw from this is that Existence is an "illusion"
> or
> > (to borrow Hegel's word) "appearance".  Existence is a world of
> appearances
> > where the phenomena experienced reflect the 'IS-ness' of the Absolute
> Source
> > differentially.
>
> [Mark]
> Yes, a dream within a dream.  It would seem that we are switching
> words for rhetorical effect, which I do not have a problem with by the
> way.  So, reality is now illusion.  I like the term appearance,
> however, I am not quite sure why.



John:  I know why.  "Illusion" means something fake.  There is a useful
semantic distinction between what we mean by illusion vs. what we mean by
reality.  In a subject-oriented metaphysic, there is no functional
difference between the two, but when the spectre of intersubjective
disagreement raises its ugly head, the difference becomes plain.  Reality is
that upon which we find easy agreement.



>
> [Mark]
> I figured you would say that, but I meant it as a compliment.  I
> suppose to be a Buddhist one has to believe in reincarnation and
> Karma; you haven't spoken of those things.


John:

Actually, according to my readings on the subject, the Buddha himself was
pretty "mu" on the whole reincarnation thing, being the supreme empiricist
and all that.  Furthermore, why would somebody who's whole focus criticised
the inherent existence of any isolated ego or soul, then go on to affirm the
continuation of such?  Doesn't quite make sense.

And karma, just means "action".  It's been taken to mean a sort of divine
retribution here in the west, but that's really not the way it was
postulated.  Every action is connected to the rest of reality and thus has
reaction.  That's all.  Very simple, really.

But then, that's the way I like it.

John