--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Wether a film is real or not real, the real issue is, that most of the movies created today aren't worth watching.
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" > <j_alexander_stanley@> 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/
