--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > > <j_alexander_stanley@> wrote: > > > > > > And, just because something changes means it's therefore not real? > > > > Its not a real as something permanent. > > > > And you appear to view everything as changing. Its a view where > > identity continues with a new form. I tend to look at it differently. > > The carrot on my plate is no longer thre. You can continue to call it > > a carrot as it moves through my bowels, is processed in a sewage > > plant, and is scattered who knows where. i tend to say that THAT > > carrot not longer exists. For a few months it was here. Over the > > last6 billion years, most of the time it was not. Perhaps "real" > > is not the best word to descibe that. Unsubstantial? Not as > > substantial as a sequoia redwood. Or a glacier. Or the earth. > > Or the universe. And even all of those emerge then die. None as > > substantial as that which remains. > > I agree that substantial is a better word than real, but, are you > equating substance with value? I.e., do you attach more value to that > which changes less? 'Cuz IMO, the split-second smile of a child can be > every bit as valuable as a mountain that has stood for millions of years. > > > But that doesn't not mean i am anti-carrots. I love them. And I love > > films. Though I know they are an illusion. I love many things that > > come and go. Why would owning up to their impermanence have anything > > to do with not liking them? That you apparently find anyone who sees > > things as impermanent or an illusion as being anti- that thing is > > both surprising and interesting. > > Again, this goes back to the use of "real". I think to declare the > relative as unreal is to devalue it, and devaluing is, IMO, anti. And, > I think devaluing the relative is what leads to toxic religious dogmas > that declare our humanness to be sinful and that normal desires should > be repressed.
i understand your latter point. But to me, your arguement does not follow. Such zealots are making the same mistake as one who thinks that because a film is not "real" that it has no value and should be banned. Just because there are nut cases who might argue such things, doesn't diminish the fact that the film is a piece of celluloid in a canister --- and not really what it "appears" to be. And just because some realize that the film is not really what it appears to be, does not imply in any way that they hate films. Most film goers love films -- but still realize its limited nature. And while "substantial" is better than "real" it still is not the best word. And no, saying less substantial does not mean less value. Though valuations get tricky. Do you value one single bacteria cell as much as a giant sequoia? i don't, perhaps thats my shame to bear. :) And there is the capture the fort concept which to me still makes sense from some angles. Is the fort of greater value than one of many precious metal mines within the territory of the fort. (and this is a non-oppresive, diverse, and organic fort mind you). To say the fort has more value than one gold mine, does not ina any way imply that the gold mine is not fabulous. or that we don't love the gold mine. if some mentally-challenged religous zealot things so, that is no reason to be as irrational and say the gold mine and the fort are of equal value. Or that the gold mine has more value. Anyway, now that Rory has cognized the vedic correlates to the genitals, its all OK. :) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
