For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Are you being sexist? For all you know I am a masculine and muscular builder with tatoosDontaskme wrote:Right brain thinking.Belinda wrote:Dontaskme wrote:
What are you talking about?
This about your ability or otherwise to be inquisitive about ideas.
What do you mean by original word?... Does the word ''Nothing'' give meaning to it's opposite ''Something'' ..in a sense yes, for something could not be known to 'Be' without the comparison of 'Not Be'... but this is the dualistic mind in operation, words form language, language forms knowledge, knowledge forms meaning/known etc... But all these ''known's'' are appearances in timelessness non-duality...inseparably one and the same, they define each other, and must exist as one in the same place/moment. There is no such thing as space/time duality except as a concept arising in that which is not a concept. These two dynamics, subject and object have to be in the same moment ...the meaning of the word 'real' couldn't be known if the word 'illusory' was not also available in the same moment. All knowing is one with the knowing in the same moment. Only words and meaning define what reality is, and words and meaning are fictions. What reality actually is, is without word or meaning..that's the real world.Philosophy Explorer wrote:Dontaskme said:
"Because nothing could be described at all without an opposite for comparison. A word by itself is devoid of any meaning without the presence of it's opposite.Because nothing could be described at all without an opposite for comparison. A word by itself is devoid of any meaning without the presence of it's opposite. The opposite is a word as well, which gets it's meaning from the word it gives meaning to, which is nevertheless without a meaning by itself. This means that the quantum nature of meanings is a word with it's opposite in the same moment. This implies that the meaning which you do not want is also present in the meaning that you do want. This mysterious play of opposites are of the same one mind in the same moment. A mind that cannot be seen or known by what is seen and known. Every thing is known, except the knower. Every thing is seen except the seer. No knower or seer indicates every thing known and seen are fiction."
I strongly disagree with this. Before an opposite word can come about, there must be the original word which precedes the opposite word in time.
Again quoting:
"The opposite is a word as well, which gets it's meaning from the word it gives meaning to, which is nevertheless without a meaning by itself."
If anything it's the original word that gives meaning to the opposite word. More than that, it seems you're using circular reasoning plus contradicting yourself.
PhilX
Belinda wrote:Are you being sexist? For all you know I am a masculine and muscular builder with tatoosDontaskme wrote:Right brain thinking.Belinda wrote:
This about your ability or otherwise to be inquisitive about ideas.
I know that what I wrote regarding the classic myth of Leda and the Swan is what a lot of people , even on this philosophy forum, would consider a bit weird. I just keep hoping that someone will add something to what I am currently thinking about so I can learn something. Also, I like trying to explain an idea as this makes me think .If people are going to throw weird stuff at me .... then what am I supposed to do with it, I'm not a mind reader.
I don't even know what you mean by partiality to the interdisciplinary.Belinda wrote:I know that what I wrote regarding the classic myth of Leda and the Swan is what a lot of people , even on this philosophy forum, would consider a bit weird. I just keep hoping that someone will add something to what I am currently thinking about so I can learn something. Also, I like trying to explain an idea as this makes me think .If people are going to throw weird stuff at me .... then what am I supposed to do with it, I'm not a mind reader.
I suppose I too am a right brain thinker if that refers to partiality to the interdisciplinary.
Then maybe you'd prefer crude Anglo Saxon wordsI don't even know what you mean by partiality to the interdisciplinary.
Belinda, your post is perfectly clear and I agree. Sisyphus is a clear example. Not too many know why he was forced to push a boulder up and down a hill, but his situation itself is famous because it so clearly describes an aspect of reality that may always be relevant.Belinda wrote:At present I'm attracted to the fictional characters of Leda and Zeus according to the tale of the former's rape by the latter.
If any fictional characters more than others approach eternal life those are the characters whose stories portray large concepts regarding the human condition.
There is no 'you' to do thought. A thought is 'you'Belinda wrote:Thanks Greta. Thoughts can be lonely when you do them all by yourself
Dontaskme wrote:There is no 'you' to do thought. A thought is 'you'Belinda wrote:Thanks Greta. Thoughts can be lonely when you do them all by yourself
You've never had a thought. Thoughts have you. And you have never seen a single thought.
The body exists, as this immediate aliveness. The Dontaskme character is as dead as a door nail.Belinda wrote: I am sure that there is a physical body which is an aspect of the Dontaskme on this forum.
osgart wrote:ronald reagan died of alzheimers and not a shred of his memory was able to him. So for memory to exist eternally than something in the brain is preventing his focus, awareness, and recall of his memories and it impacts his commune with his soul. Otherwise we are only our brains which seems like a totally absurd miracle beyond miracles. Plus the body shows design and careful planning in its existence. Which means to me intelligence must exist enduringly for intelligence to become at all.
HexHammer wrote:Scientists claim that "information" is indestructible! ..which suggests that the human soul is/can be eternal, why there is a concept of reincarnation.