Tho' much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Alfred, Lord Tennyson. "Ulysses."
It's an interesting speculation to wonder if Jesus had lived into old age, would he have been a different person, lived a different life? Would the zeal of itinerancy have burned out? Don't be too quick to answer, or you'll deny the carne of the incarnation, the very issue that we struggle with still: whether carne and psyche are one and indivisible, or are forever at war and mix only like oil and water, engage each other only like ghost and machine.
An interesting speculation that deserves more consideration.
OT: I hope you don't mind that I centered my Saturday post at Echidne's around one of your posts.
ReplyDeleteAnthony McCarthy
I saw that. Don't mind at all. Didn't mean to be "berating" you, but otherwise, I had no complaint with it.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Blake February 12 at 11:12am
ReplyDeleteWHAT WE EXPERIENCE –OUR REALITY -depends upon what we believe WHAT WE BELIEVE depends upon what we perceive WHAT WE PERCEIVE depends upon what we're looking for WHAT WE LOOK FOR depends upon what we think WHAT WE THINK determines what we perceive WHAT WE PERCEIVE determines what we believe WHAT WE BELIEVE determines wha...t we take to be true WHAT WE TAKE TO BE TRUE determines our experience – our reality and so on...
Charles Blake February 12 at 11:58am
Sure is circular isn't it? And you didn't mention the body, which is a strong determinate of our experience. The body is the center of our spiral. The body is one with nature. Nature is the matrix in which we spirals spin.
Daniel is my 20 year old son who is spending a semester in Jordan studying Arabic. I am Charles, his 54 year old dad, who became a Buddhist in part because I tired of what I perceived as Christian deprecation of the body.
Sure is circular isn't it?
ReplyDeleteI would point out it is so tautological it doesn't allow room for change or intrusion. I'm not arguing with it so much as not accepting it as a full statement that provides sufficient guidance.
Beginning with the idea of "nature." What is it? Is it not just a matter of what we perceive, believe, look for, take to be true, etc.? And if it is that tautological, if the system of thought is truly that tightly closed, is it really "thought" at all? Is "nothing" just a placeholder for a thought we cannot think (How do you truly experience "Nothing" such that you can perceive it and think about it and look for it and take it to be true?), or is it, seemingly paradoxically (but is event he question just one more of Wittgenstein's language games?), something?
And what is "real"?
Anyway....
We Buddhist focus on suffering, and the way to eliminate suffering.
ReplyDeleteI would like to be omniscient, but am repeatedly crashed upon the rocky shores of my own ignorance. I don't really know what "nature" is. I am nature!