[MD] self

[MarshaV]

 Greetings Ham,  


Here's the crux of the matter for me.  There is the concept of an 'autonomous self' 
and the experience of a 'subjective perspective'.  I have never found any 
autonomous self, but I do seem to experience a subjective perspective.  Since I 
have not found an 'autonomous self' to exist, I find no reason to accept a self or 
reject it.  
 

Marsha  


 
 
On Oct 8, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Ham Priday wrote:

> Hi Marsha, Mark --
> 
> 
> On Oct 8, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Mark 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Marsha,
>> This is not a question of existence, it is about belief.  Existence as presented
>> is a static concept.  Belief is much deeper than that.
> 
> [Marsha responds]:
>> No, it is not a question, it is a tetralemma.   There is Value(Dynamic/static).
>> I have no idea how you define or assign "deeper than that".?
> 
> May I intercede here. Marsha?  The Tetralemma is a four-sided dilemma, which is questionable if only for logical reasons.
> 
> Perhaps Mark was suggesting that the reality you believe in is more significant than the reality you experience, BECAUSE of the Value your belief adds to it.
> 
> Awareness consists of more than factual knowledge.  We are aware of the world as we "believe it to be."  Belief (i.e., personal conviction) is what gives it Value.  Belief can be influenced by a number of factors -- sensory experience, logical reasoning, pragmatic reliability, scientific predictability, philosophical postulates, religious doctrines, etc.  But once you believe something to be true, it becomes an integral part of your "worldview", your awareness of reality.  Likewise, whatever you believe to be false is excluded from your conscious worldview.
> 
> Therefore, you cannot reasonably believe in something whose reality is ambiguous, that is, an entity or principle which is neither true nor false. Claiming to hold such a belief is either self-deceptive or disingenuous on your part.  That's why Mark said that "staying on the raft of To Be or Not to Be misses the point."  It misses the point of a philosophical conception, a maxim to live by, or a cogent belief system.
> 
> Personally, I find the vernacular of "dynamic/static" and "direct/indirect" as it applies to reality not only confusing but inconsistent with experience.  However, if these terms have meaning to you, by all means "embrace the dynamic."  And thanks for serving up the precious Hamlet observation, "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."  It supports Ham's moral concept that all Value is relative to the sensible subject.
> 
> I also believe one should live by his/her convictions.
> 
> Good subject, Mark.  A philosophy that doesn't acknowledge selfness is meaningless.
> 
> Valuistically yours,  
>   Ham


 
___