無 (MA) Commentary v1.0

(10.07.2024)

10.07.2024

[1] relative and absolute, dependent and independent; is there the absolute, is there the relative? What to one is sweet is bitter to another, thus, the relative should be. But is there the absolute? Where? If “1 + 1 = 2”, this may be absolute, yet also relative – relative to the system of arithmetic. Thus, where is the absolute absolute?

12.07.2024

[2] #507 “values not physical”, cannot be measured with matter. “A is good.” adds value to A. But doesn’t exist in or as intrinsic property of A. An association, an impulse, a reaction of the mind, an experience when perceiving A. To have A emerge in the mind provokes a voice, “good!”. Intuition is no representation, cannot have a corresponding thing, is also no sentence, no shape it has.

[3] A has property of “good”. What does it mean? Things will want it? It should be? If things don’t all want it, is it good? Are they wrong instead? What is the authoritative voice? If a deity, why are they authoritative? If something else, why is that authoritative? Why not listen to one’s own deep voice?

14.07.2024

[4] #617 “world of possible doing”: Are we a part of the mind? If so, our world is the mind. Understanding it means to know every possible doing we could do. This is the table on which the game is played out. If we are a part of the mind, body movements are results of our thoughts, i.e. mind movements/mind doings.

[5] #623 “ultimate authority self”: If a deity has authority, we act because our own authority selects the deity to have authority. Does not everything come back to our own authority?

15.07.2024

[6] #628 “give bad to guilty”: Is it good to treat badly those who have done wrong? If not generally, what about with punishment? Is punishment good or bad?

16.07.2024

[7] #668 “meta-law vs law”: Are there not relative statements hidden behind absolute statements? “One should give A.” may differ in worth between contexts, such as when “A” is much or little. Thus, the real message might be “One should be kind.”, of which the first message was merely a shadow, relative to the context of author and audience, time and space.

18.07.2024

[8] #712 “can love bad”: Is it possible to love one’s enemy? If so, how is it possible? If “to love” requires “to want”, and one’s enemy has “bad”, would it mean “to want bad”? Is it by definition not impossible, as “to want” may be thought of as “to aim for good”, e.g. “one’s own good”? Thus, either one’s “enemy” does not have “bad” and is not one’s “enemy”, and/or one adds “good” to them where there may not be any, to make them more good than bad. “to love” may also require “to support”, thus “to support that which is bad for oneself”. Should this require empathy, such that one forgets oneself and sees oneself in the other entirely, thus go against oneself?

22.07.2024

[9]