From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Paul Harvey's Dream (was: Re: Stop thinking?)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1992Sep13.143547.7501@ac.dal.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 06:20:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.143547.7501@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <fSwQ2bV@quack.sac.ca.us>, 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep12.124113.7480@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>I don't know what your point is here, I'm afraid. This was just a 
>theoretical argument about the implications of a doctrine of free will.
>Personally, I think free will is a myth, so all of the above argument is
>simply academic. Interesting, but irrelevant, finally.

My point is this: If one recognizes that "God" is different than human,
that God is transcendent of some, if not all, concepts of human, perhaps
even that there is a transcendent that is transcendent, then one must be
careful in trying to label this transcendent with human terms, like good
and bad. Hint: Good and bad are of the human being. The transcendent is
transcendent of good and bad. And as for your point that free will is a
myth, perhaps you are right, but not in myth=false, but myth=metaphor.

>My kind?? What kind would that be?

I think you know this answer.

>> An actual creator God, and what would that be? And why is it necessary?

>Read the Creeds, dude. It sounds to me like you have some idea of "God..."
>although I may be wrong about this. Personally, I suspect that "God"
>is a _poetic_ figure, a fictional character, like Captain Kirk. This
>doesn't mean that the Bible is worthless any more than _Hamlet_ is 
>worthless because Hamlet and Ophelia are fictional. Just my opinion, though.

I stumbled on your word actual. Creation is of course metaphoric, or
perhaps you would say poetic. Actual seems a little hard and
restrictive, don'tcha think?

>> Is there something, some
>> class beyond our current ability to understand it?

>Obviously, the answer to this must be "we don't know." Anything which is
>beyond what a human being can see is obviously not known to any human beings. 

Yes, and thus transcendent of the human being, but be careful. There
still is the potential for enlightenment or Nietzsche's OverMan.

>If I can answer that question than it's NOT transcendent anymore, is it?

Right, if you can explain the answer to us common folxs. For example,
Buddha knew, but could not say or TELL you or I. Or could he?

>> Right, I have knowledge of good and bad, I am an eater of that fruit, I
>> eat with pride, when I eat I throw my hands up high! I have tasted
>> forbiden fruit and I tell you, it is good, it is very good.

>That was never in question! :) However, there was a warning - on the day that
>you eat of that fruit, you shall surely die. 

Now, be careful of your wording. It is my interpretation that I will die
of my human being whether I eat of the fruit or not. Eating the fruit
gives me better knowledge of the death of the human being and the answer
to why the human being must die. If I had knowledge of eternal human
life, I would not eat, because my knowledge of good and bad tells me that
eternal human life is not the "right" thing.

>I'll bite: how are they different, and how are they the same? 

Hmm, fear and desire? That is one of the hard ones, not like life and
death, you start with an ambitious goal. I must warn you that this is
not some kind of new age mumble jumble, this is serious Eastern study,
this is a path or sutra to enlightenment. That said, I can start it:
Fear/desire:
Different: fear is running away, fear of something greater or more
powerful, fear is a realization of danger, fear means fight or flight.
desire is running towards, desire possesion of something, desire is a
drive to realize a good feeling, desire means scheming as to how to get,
how to actualize a good thing.
Same: fear of desires, desire fear, both are powerful emotions, desire
can drive one away, instead of towards, fear can drive one towards
instead of away, sometimes one confuses fear for desire and desire for
fear, one can desire something that one fears and one can fear something
that one desires. The desire of fear is as addicting as desire of
anything else, and fear of desire is as fearful as fear of anything
else.
Does this give you a flavor for the field of opposites yoga or sutra?
At some point, it must be done in the mind as it transcends words.

>>>This "way of light:" what exactly is it? Why follow it? 
 
>> Ah, it is of course the way of an authentic individual living an
>> authentic life 

>What standards do you use to determine what is "authentic" and what isn't?

My own, of course. It is I who knows what is right, for me. If you mean,
by what myths do I judge my path, as Nietzsche himself asked, then I do
the same as Nietz, I make it my life's goal to determine by what myths I
judge right, that meaning I study all myth and draw my own
interpretations, I learn from dogma without being dogmatic, I first go
under, for the purpose of gaining perspective, then I go over as
Nietzsche's overMan. But now I am probably closer to Zarathustra's Ape,
that is, you do think I put on a good show, do you not?

>> and doing the right thing. And why follow it? Because
>> that is my right. 

>Hmmm...how did you come to this conclusion?

Because I read the Mahabharata and I know that my father was dharma, of
course, dharma being "doing the right thing". Thus dharma is my family
name, my birthright, my patriarchal inheritence. I know I have the right
of dharma, and it is the search of this dharma that guides my life as
human being, son of dharma. Doing the right thing is my right.

>> I am now a human being, but only for a brief time,
>> while I am human being I will feed the fire, I will live as the human
>> being that I am,

>Do you really have any choice?
 
Yes, I could become a Jain and quench the fire. This is one of the
choices that seekers of dharma must make, quench the fire like the Jains
and other haters of the flesh, or feed the fire like the Buddha who came
back to restore favor and play with the children as an equal. Sabe? And
you say you have no free will, you do and as a result you must chose,
chose to do the right thing, or the wrong thing, or no choice at all.
Freedom does not mean what slaves first think it does, with freedom
comes choice, options and the knowledge that now one is on the path of
one's own desire. This is why so many fear and desire freedom at the
same time. As for me, I merely realize my freedom, without fear or
desire. Most desire freedom, but also fear it and thus keep with the
seeming comfort of the illusion of slavery. Now do you see some of this
fear/desire, slave/freeman field of opposites?

>> I will do the right thing, as my knowledge of good and
>> bad tells be how. 

>Why follow an artificial code of morality?  Since your "right" is someone
>else's "wrong," why bother with notions of "right" and "wrong?" Just asking.

Artificial code of morality? What do you mean? I use my notions of right
and wrong so that I can do the right thing, of course. Of course, my
right is someone else's wrong, for example I must eat and thus kill
life.

>Why not? If I may say so, you are preaching a dogma, albeit rather a 
>idiosyncratic one. 

I may preach a dogma, but I do not wish that it makes you become
dogmatic to my dogma. My dogma is for you to learn and give me feedback.
What I say really only applies to me from my perspective, you can take
it if you like and reflect it into your reality, or give me some
feedback on how you see things.

>So do I escape the dunghill treatment?
 
OK, I tire of this Book of Daniel dunghill stuff anyway.

>What standards do you use in determining what is just?

Ah, my interpretation of myth, of course, a la Nietzsche.

>> Yes, I am a slave to freedom, but let me tell you, that is the only type
>> of slave to be.

>Hmmm...really? The Lord came to deliver your kind (?) FROM slavery! 
>Why do you cling to your broken shackles?

I do not cling to the old broken shackles, any shackles on a freeman are
only an illusion of the field of opposites. ::::B^} My slavery to the
cause of freedom is only an illusion of slavery/freedom. This in not a
hinderence to doing the right thing. I'm afraid that my Zarathustra's
Ape can run cirles rogically around your Ape anyday. :::B^}

>I'm not sure what to say to this!

When all else fails, say Jah! Ras TafarI! Music hits you hard but you feel
no pain. Hit me with music.

>> the prophet Janis Joplin, who said, "Freedom is just
>> another word for nothing left to lose, nothing". I don't have that type
>> of absolute freedom, I am enslaved to the being of human, but one day I
>> will have that freedom.

>How did you come to this conclusion, if I may ask?

Hmm, isn't it obvious? I do not have nothing left to lose, yet. I am in
a sense a slave to my possesions, but this does not bother me because I
am a feeder of the fire. How about you? Do you have nothing left to
lose?

>> I am that I am?

>And you are not that you are not. Or so I hear...:)

Ah, just another one of those field of opposites. Jah! Ras TafarI!

>What are you going to take hold of if there is nothing to hold?

I am going to grab what I first perceive as SOMEthing, then I will learn
that I have NOthing. Step by step, inch by inch ...

>>>Disclaimer: I'm wrong.
 
>> Oh no! I insist! It is I who is more wrong! In comparison to my
>> absolute wrongness, you are comparatively right!

>Okay, okay...you can have it your way... :)

Thank you, you are most correct in your graciousness, only you could be
so right in comparison to my wrong.

>Disclaimer: Everything I say is false. 

Oh no! I insist! It is I who is more false! In comparison to my
absolute falseness, you are comparatively true!
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc