Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Like I said, run along now and learn! You might want to open a book in the near future.

This is all you've ever got to say because you have no real understanding of esoteric knowledge. You are unwilling to cast your net further than inside a fictional book in your search for truth. The truth is not in a fictional book. There is no truth to be found external to you, the truth is you right now.There is nothing outside of you.The truth is what you are doing right now and you didn't even have any part or play in that. You have been played.

If you can't answer questions properly ..go away and play in toyland that you believe to exist and leave the real McCoy to the masters.

Dontaskme wrote:Well I suppose there's two sides to every story, so it depends what side one is on.

One side is the real unfettred non-conceptual blank page of pure beingness. And the other side is the unreal fettered conceptual array of letters and words.

But none of this really matters, since the story is in separable from the book.

Um... Or maybe "Ommmmmmmm".

Not following, chum. None of that answer makes any sense to me.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:Well I suppose there's two sides to every story, so it depends what side one is on.

One side is the real unfettred non-conceptual blank page of pure beingness. And the other side is the unreal fettered conceptual array of letters and words.

But none of this really matters, since the story is in separable from the book.

Um... Or maybe "Ommmmmmmm".

Not following, chum. None of that answer makes any sense to me.

That's because you can't see or read my thoughts. We each create our own reality. One substance from which many models are built. Think playdough.

''In my Father's house are many mansions,if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. ''
. . . Signed yours truly Jesus.

The place I Am / live ....cannot be seen. The place I Am not / don't live .... can be seen.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:Well I suppose there's two sides to every story, so it depends what side one is on.

One side is the real unfettred non-conceptual blank page of pure beingness. And the other side is the unreal fettered conceptual array of letters and words.

But none of this really matters, since the story is in separable from the book.

Um... Or maybe "Ommmmmmmm".

Not following, chum. None of that answer makes any sense to me.

It has never ceased to amaze how or why intelligent persons such as yourself bother with this nitwit.

Dontaskme wrote:That's because you can't see or read my thoughts.

I beg to differ. I think it's because your thoughts are disjointed and don't respect the normal guidelines of grammar, let alone reason and logic.

We each create our own reality. One substance from which many models are built. Think playdough.

Playdough is something I gave up as a child. I certainly don't fashion my reality out of is, even by way of analogy. And in the "reality I have created" (as you so incoherently put it -- a "reality" of that sort is exactly the same as a delusion), you're still not making sense. That's the point, from where I sit.

''In my Father's house are many mansions,if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. ''

I'd say I appreciate the quotation, except that it's ripped screaming out of the context in which is was originally written, and is now being used to advocate a view to which it clearly never did refer.

The place I Am / live ....cannot be seen. The place I Am not / don't live .... can be seen.

Well, this is the height of self-contradiction. Because if you're talking to me at all, then unquestionably you're talking to me in the place you say I "am not / don't live," by which I think you mean shared reality, rather than this imaginary "reality" you claim is what's really going on here. That is, if I get you aright, which I really am not sure I can.

But since the rules of grammar and logic are clearly not in play in what you're saying, I'm going to have to excuse myself. I appreciate your interest in "sharing" your view, but the way you insist on speaking lacks the basic elements of coherence that permit communication.

attofishpi wrote:It has never ceased to amaze how or why intelligent persons such as yourself bother with this nitwit.

You're very kind. However, I like to be open to people at first, and let them go where they want to. At the end of the day, I think we can reserve our own judgment about whether they have anything worth hearing, and let the thing go when they don't.

I've seen his view. It's nothing new, nothing I haven't seen many times before, and nothing I find winsome from any perspective. But it doesn't hurt me to hear, and it may do some good for someone if we talk it through as far as possible.

But you are right: I don't think he is in a mood to do logic, reasoning, data, facts or evidence, and I'd say he's not even interested in the normal meanings of language. So I am out of options, and am content to have tried. Now I know.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:That's because you can't see or read my thoughts.

I beg to differ. I think it's because your thoughts are disjointed and don't respect the normal guidelines of grammar, let alone reason and logic.

We each create our own reality. One substance from which many models are built. Think playdough.

Playdough is something I gave up as a child. I certainly don't fashion my reality out of is, even by way of analogy. And in the "reality I have created" (as you so incoherently put it -- a "reality" of that sort is exactly the same as a delusion), you're still not making sense. That's the point, from where I sit.

''In my Father's house are many mansions,if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. ''

I'd say I appreciate the quotation, except that it's ripped screaming out of the context in which is was originally written, and is now being used to advocate a view to which it clearly never did refer.

The place I Am / live ....cannot be seen. The place I Am not / don't live .... can be seen.

Well, this is the height of self-contradiction. Because if you're talking to me at all, then unquestionably you're talking to me in the place you say I "am not / don't live," by which I think you mean shared reality, rather than this imaginary "reality" you claim is what's really going on here. That is, if I get you aright, which I really am not sure I can.

But since the rules of grammar and logic are clearly not in play in what you're saying, I'm going to have to excuse myself. I appreciate your interest in "sharing" your view, but the way you insist on speaking lacks the basic elements of coherence that permit communication.

Stop being mental.



Be still/silent and know that I Am God.

I will pass this way only once.

attofishpi wrote:It has never ceased to amaze how or why intelligent persons such as yourself bother with this nitwit.

Immanuel Can wrote:You're very kind. However, I like to be open to people at first, and let them go where they want to. At the end of the day, I think we can reserve our own judgment about whether they have anything worth hearing, and let the thing go when they don't.

I've seen his view. It's nothing new, nothing I haven't seen many times before, and nothing I find winsome from any perspective. But it doesn't hurt me to hear, and it may do some good for someone if we talk it through as far as possible.

But you are right: I don't think he is in a mood to do logic, reasoning, data, facts or evidence, and I'd say he's not even interested in the normal meanings of language. So I am out of options, and am content to have tried. Now I know.

In other words your opinion is of no significance.

This one here is not enslaved by empty principles.

Only heaven is real. The real is boundless freedom to be.

Dontaskme wrote:In other words your opinion is of no significance.

Mine isn't. Yours isn't. Nobody's is.

It's only things like "reference to reality," i.e. truthfulness, that adds value to an opinion.

As a person, of course, you have value, at least in my worldview: but I'm not convinced of the value of the particular opinions expressed here, especially in view of their lack of reference to the qualities above. The contempt for those qualities that your view requires seems to me highly problematic.

But that is my opinion. If you can find criteria, you may judge it for yourself. I won't be offended...but I won't agree either.

One thing for certain: we shall see what is true.