Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 12:11:32 -0800
From: "Robert T. Guevara" <guevara-AT-rain.org>
Subject: Re: preconceptions & connections


Hi Steven,

It is a game that I am playing.  ...by this I mean, just that.  ...it isn't
fighting serious.  ...i'm just 'talking.'  If what i say doesn't appeal to
you then just 'go on' with your own agenda.

Unfortunately (this is just what is) the 'default being' of Human being is
given by:   NOT BEING.

There are many people who BE who they are.  Since this isn't the 'default,'
it follows that it must be the result of a 'transformation.'

Let's take an example.  A highly degreed black belt is 'BEING' who he is
when 'fighting.' (use the term loosely)

In fact NOT BEING who he is would 'preclude' his 'magnificent dance' with
'what is.'  Do you honestly think that he could 'fight' as he does from a
place of 'triggered being?'

Likewise (in ZEN for example), people have trained themselve from ancient
times to BE who they are.  They're BEING gives spontaneous action in the
most appropriate of ways.  ...in ways not possible when we are given by our
default being. ('triggered being')

Also, some people have endeavored to create 'trainings' in contemporary time
that have the same result.  Henry would prefer to call these cults.  ...I'm
sure that some are!  ...they don't have to be.

I'm pressed for time.  Will continue the game later!

 

At 08:57 AM 1/27/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Robert T. Guevara wrote:
>
>>I am not talking about being 'thinking about being.' (can you say fallacy of
>>infinite regresssion?)
>>
>>I am talking about BEING.  ...as in BEING who you are?
>>
>>By the way, this is all very simple.  I promise you, one cannot BE in one's
>>mind.  This is fanatasy!
>>
>>I am talking about BEING in one's world.  ...isn't there where one is?
>>....or, where is one?
>
>Might make a good song (in fact, I think it already has!). But seriously,
>isn't the deeper question here simply whether Being is possible at all? I
>was reading an interesting paper a couple of days ago that I got off the Web
>that made the point that the relation between truth and certainty was
>comparable to that between profit and risk. In other words, the more
>certainty you demand, the  _less_ truth you are liable to realize (althugh
>you might also minimize falsity, mind you). Anyway, just a thought. Could it
>be the same with Being/Non-Being?
>
>Steve Callihan
>
>
>
>     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
+-----------------------------------------------+
| Robert T. Guevara                             |
| ELECTRICAL ENGINEER                           |
| Camarillo CA                                  |
|                                               |
| E-mail:   guevara-AT-rain.org                    |
|           guevarb-AT-qmsmtpgw.mugu.navy.mil      |
|           b.guevara-AT-worldnet.att.net          |
|                                               |
| URL:      http://www.rain.org/~guevara        |
+-----------------------------------------------+



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---