The Golden Mean & Other Sacred Symbols

Milarepa

Adept
This is three valued logic with the middle ground being everything and anything between the acknowledged extremes. Virtue is the middle path between too much and too little, the correct amount being the mean. Courage is a kind of mean.

The law of impermanence doesn't apply to the Noble Truths.
 

J Randall Murphy

Trying To Stay Awake
This is three valued logic with the middle ground being everything and anything between the acknowledged extremes. Virtue is the middle path between too much and too little, the correct amount being the mean. Courage is a kind of mean.

The law of impermanence doesn't apply to the Noble Truths.
I found the Fourth Noble Truth to be quite intersting in that it's called Magga Sacca: the noble truth of the right path to Nibbana.
Now re-read it while applying a political interpretation to the words,"Maga" and "right" ( lol ).

I'm skeptical that The law of impermanence is a, "fact of reality that cannot be changed; that everything that comes to be eventually passes away."
There seems to be ample evidence for the law of conservation of energy — that things don't "come to be" and "pass away" as much as they are transformed over time from one thing to another.

Additionally, what about Nature? It seems that it's the "last turtle down" — and infinite. Even the Gods ( if there are such things ), must ultimately be creations of Nature.

How can we know what the Golden Mean is without experiencing where the extremes of the two opposing states begin and end? It seems we have a paradox.
 
Last edited:

Milarepa

Adept
I found the Fourth Noble Truth to be quite intersting in that it's called Magga Sacca: the noble truth of the right path to Nibbana.
Now re-read it while applying a political interpretation to the words,"Maga" and "right" ( lol ).
Politics are the reciprocal trope of recent times carrying it's own fictional paradox. Two different sides reciprocating actions which establish one another and those who follow as being out of touch with reality, fictional, within their own respective identities.

A classic term for this type of dilemma could be Complexio, which simply put means, whichever two choices you take, it will be condemned.


I'm skeptical that The law of impermanence is a, "fact of reality that cannot be changed; that everything that comes to be eventually passes away."
There seems to be ample evidence for the law of conservation of energy — that things don't "come to be" and "pass away" as much as they are transformed over time from one thing to another.
The law of impermanence is the cornerstone of the possibility of psychological transformation. An enlightened mind perceives both the impermanence of the phenomenal world and the permanence of the energetic world, the former rising from the latter. In Buddhism this is referred to as the Two Truths which honors the reality of both truths. For Buddhists both the relative and absolute truths are real.

Additionally, what about Nature? It seems that it's the "last turtle down" — and infinite. Even the Gods ( if there are such things ), must ultimately be creations of Nature.

How can we know what the Golden Mean is without experiencing where the extremes of the two opposing states begin and end? It seems we have a paradox.
The Golden Mean fallacy is an argument from examples, the paradox arises from involving a self reference, leading to contradictions.
 
Top