From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Reply to Steve Adams (LONG!)
Organization: The way of we don't need no water, let it burn-yo!
	<1992Aug24.182705.15806@samba.oit.unc.edu> <adams.715353838@spssig> 
	<1992Sep1.172208.7256@ac.dal.ca>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:01:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.172208.7256@ac.dal.ca> 
hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>Eve's curiosity outweighed her fear of death (which makes sense, really,
>considering she didn't even know what death was...).  It is this 
>internal resolving of conflicting urges that we misleadingly call
>"choice."  Choice is a fiction of language, created by the misleading
>way we use the word "I."  We say "I chose X,"  as if it were an action
>which some entity called "I" were doing, rather than as a description of
>a process. It is this process that should be called "I."  

I is the subject, chose is the process or verb and X is the object. Latin
does not seperate the subject and the process, one conjugates the process to
indicate the subject. The concept of individual indentity as seperate from
cultural or societal or tribal indentity was developed in modern times in
Europe and reached its height in the 12th century and is expressed in the
difference between modern European languages and Latin. The subject is now
seperate from the process and has it's own identity. As you say, the subject
is an illusion of perception. This is the field of opposites that we call
reality. You/Me, Us/Them, Life/Death, Good/Bad, Light/Dark ... It is in the
union of the opposites where you will find the transcendent, but this day
to leave will come soon enough. In the meantime, I am that I am.

>Are we different than human-like computers?  Look - God makes the rules,
>right? 

It is only us who percieve rules from what is only transcendent. Transcendent
of all includes rules. This is the meaning of dharma or do the right thing. 
What is the right thing? That is the meaning of life as well as rock. Any
rules broken are of your own definition. Quite possibly good or bad, but
not transcendent, just human being. Eat of the fruit of knowledge and be a
human being while the time is good for such adventures. It will not last, the
drum of time is always beating. There is only one constant for human beings
and that is change. Feed the fire. We don't need no water let it burn-yo
burn-yo, we don't need no water let it burn. So it burned. Fiddle-fee, fiddle-
fie, fiddle-foe, fiddle-fum, I smell the breath of an English ... 
muffin, huffin' and puffin', j-e-l-l-o, ya know?

>So he can do whatever he @%$% well pleases, and that becomes "good"
>by definition, in your book. So if God creates beings that will damn 
>themselves to Hell, that is "Good" by defintion. Fine - but that is 
>incredibly inhuman and only the most ruthless rationalist could embrace such 
>a doctrine, let alone have the slightest attraction towards any being capable
>of that kind of behaviour, which revolts me. I cannot help but find it 
>profoundly insensitive, uncaring, and infinitely cruel.

The transcendent is transcendent of good and bad, these are concepts of the
human being obtained from the fruit of the tree in the center of the garden.
Look at the union, that is the light ... and the dark. The field of opposites
define the meaning of human being, the transcendent is ... well, you get
the idea right?