GENIUS FORUMS

clyde

In my experience Totality is much less likely to be misinterpreted than totality. Unless you have data that shows different then you don't have an argument. I need to have data, but you can make a statement based solely on your experience and it must be accepted. Is this another Genius Rule? Some p...

clyde

Kevin; I do understand the feeling. It seems natural for some (myself included) to sometimes feel that the universe is sustained by our awareness alone. For me, when I find myself entering that 'space', I pause and start to look at the details of the world about me, like the fingerprints on my finge...

clyde

Kevin;

Yes, of course the rules are a figment of my imagination. What else could any "rule" be?

Do you know if anyone other than yourself exists? I hope so; otherwise you must be very lonely.

clyde

Dan didn't say anything about QRS or "only QRS" being capable of determining the meaning of enlightenment. Only enlightened people can really know what enlightenment means. This should be obvious. OK, but according to Genius Rule #1 1. We (QRS and those we so designate) are enlightened an...

clyde

what "enlightenment" means depends entirely on QRS for only QRS is capable of determining the meaning of "enlightenment", as explained by R: Dan didn't say anything remotely like that. Look at the quote from R that was part of my post. Both you and he have argued that only an en...

clyde

When QRS uses a word, QRS determines if the word has an enlightened meaning which only QRS is capable of understanding; unlike when you use the same word. For some reason you are spiralling off into total fantasy. I've never said anything even remotely like what you say above. Kevin; Please look at...

clyde

Does this mean enlightenment is not binary, but has degrees? It depends largely on what you mean by "enlightenment". It can mean many different things. Whether a person knows the absolute truth or not is binary. I would personally say that a person is enlightened if they know the absolute...

clyde

Rule 3. When we use a word it has an enlightened meaning which you are incapable of understanding; unlike when you use the same word. Since you claim to be an enlightened person and agree with the rule as stated, Hang on, when did I say that? I agree with it where applicable and only then. OK. I'm ...

clyde

They're not all perfectly enlightened, but they are always informed by enlightenment. Once you know the truth, this changes everything. 1) Am I to understand that some of your experiences are perfectly enlightened and some of your experiences are not perfectly enlightened, so that some of your expe...

clyde

Kevin Solway wrote:In my experience Totality is much less likely to be misinterpreted than totality. Unless you have data that shows different then you don't have an argument.

I need to have data, but you can make a statement based solely on your experience and it must be accepted. Is this another Genius Rule?

clyde

Dan; Aside from projecting or speculating regarding my feelings or motives, you have not objected to the Genius Rules. Genius Rule #3 states: 3. When we use a word it has an enlightened meaning which you are incapable of understanding; unlike when you use the same word. Since you claim to be an enli...

clyde

Kevin; I don't see that I wrote about "diferent experiences". Have you noticed that recently you seem to be in the habit of changing the subject? That said, experiences are experiences. (You know, A=A.) And each experience is unique. I have not had the same experience twice, so I do not ex...

clyde

Here is an example of Genius Rule #3 rececently posted by S on the "To David Quinn: two worries" thread:

Kevin Solway wrote:The enlightened might use the same words to describe things as the unenlightened, but they mean something entirely different by them.

clyde

I may not have all the Genius Rules, but here is a start: 1. We (QRS and those we so designate) are enlightened and you are either part of the â€œherdâ€ or a seeker. 2. Repeat â€œA=Aâ€ continuously. It is the Genius Mantra and has great power, even if it lacks meaning. 3. When we use a word it has...

clyde

Diebert; I don't want to overstate my understanding of your post; I believe we are in agreement though there may be subtlies with which we may or may not agree. I definitely agree that to think that the abstract realm constitutes all of reality is an error.

clyde

The term "sub-total" already distinguishes it from "Totality". So why do you capitalize the term "Totality"? The term "totality" can easily be interpreted as a sub-total, whereas capitalizing it makes it harder to do so. That is just silly; if one is so easil...

clyde

I think you didn't get my intent. It needs a bit of a turn-around in perspective though. The terms are the only abstract. It represents no 'things', abstract or not. The terms are the only things. So yes, the term 'abstract' is itself abstract and also the only thing abstract about it. Perhaps Iâ€™...

clyde

Kevin Solway wrote:
clyde wrote:why do you capitalize the term "Totality"?
To distinguish it from all sub-totals.

The term "sub-total" already distinguishes it from "Totality".
So why do you capitalize the term "Totality"?

clyde

Terms are never supposed to do denote abstract things or states because the denoting itself embodies the abstract. Diebert; Certainly some terms are supposed to denote an abstract thing and it is this ability of terms to represent actual things and abstract things that let us talk about actual thin...

clyde

. . . a jump to equating emptiness with such metaphysical notions as "the Absolute," "the Truth," or even "God." The notion of emptiness falls prey to the very habit of mind it was intended to undermine. If Batchelor is so easily swayed by a mere capital letter, I don'...

clyde

''EMPTINESS'' IS A confusing term. Although used as an abstract noun, it does not in any way denote an abstract thing or state. It is not something we "realize" in a moment of mystical insight that "breaks through" to a transcendent reality concealed behind yet mysteriously unde...

clyde

Kevin; Yes, you're right, that is getting away from the topic of boundaries, boundaries and surfaces. Thinking about this reminded me of a saying that a teacher of mine would say, "It's turtles all the way down."

clyde

Kevin Solway wrote:
clyde wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:Regarding the moebius strip, it really only has one surface anyway.
Yes, I went on to explain that I was treating it as an unlooped strip, which means it would no longer be a moebius strip.

And that's why you called it a moebius strip?

clyde

Kevin Solway wrote:Regarding the moebius strip, it really only has one surface anyway.

clyde

I was going to reply to Leyla's post, but then Kevin posted his reply. He now claims that the moebius strip "really only has one surface anyway." WOW! That was the very reason I posted about the moebius strip. But then he adds, that the one surface is "an outer surface"! An "...

GENIUS FORUMS

Search found 680 matches

Re: emptiness

Re: Genius Rules

Re: Genius Rules

Re: Genius Rules

Re: Genius Rules

Re: Genius Rules

Re: Genius Rules

Re: Genius Rules

Re: Genius Rules

Re: emptiness

Re: Genius Rules

Re: Genius Rules

Re: Genius Rules

Genius Rules

Re: emptiness

Re: emptiness

Re: emptiness

Re: emptiness

Re: emptiness

Re: emptiness

emptiness

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?

Re: Naturalistic philosophy denies life?