"Judy Stein" <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:19b3c03e.0310220709.442a20d4@posting.google.com...
"Pansy Bassingthwaighte" <anonymous@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:<vpbtntb7hknrb3@corp.supernews.com>...
Judy Stein <jstein@panix.com> wrote in message
news:19b3c03e.0310211017.23f8aef5@posting.google.com...
"Pansy Bassingthwaighte" <anonymous@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:<vpahvk72oa1g34@corp.supernews.com>...
Tang Huyen <tang_huyen@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F951B2D.C526935D@yahoo.com...
<snip>
Sorry, missed this in my previous post.
Short answer: Yes. But there are two "orders" of "the way things
are" involved. To conflate them constitutes a category error.
Having desires is the first order of "the way things are." It
creates unhappiness because a desire to change the second order
of "the way things are" (e.g., one has just been diagnosed with
terminal cancer) can't always be satisfied.
Changing the first order of "the way things are" is possible:
there are means to cease desiring. If one has no desires, then
one can accept without unhappiness the second order of "the way
things are" that cannot be changed.
(Doesn't mean you can't avail yourself of treatment for the
cancer, just that you won't be attached to the results such
that you'll be unhappy if the treatment doesn't work.)
Because the treatment available is part of "the way things are"
.
