lou, here's a douzy
ok i will try. what was it, exactly?
You said I am trapped within complexity, and can't see past the badge I'm wearing. Prove to me that my beliefs are overly complex.
reasoning for what???
understanding is just perspective. do you understand this?
You have not given me any reasoning for the untrue statements you make about me, and about my relation to Reality.
Understanding is required for knowledge. It is not "just" perspective: if you don't understand anything, there is literally no value in anything you say. There is no reason to think it true.
yes, i have less understanding of what reality 'is' than you. this is why i can see reality clearer than you.
That is counter-intuitive. I know precisely what Reality is, and have no difficulty in seeing it clearly at all times. If you don't know exactly what Reality is, what you see are your delusions.
In a sense, yes, even a delusion is part of reality. Christians, for instance, really do believe in a benevolent God. Their delusions do actually exist. But they are by no means an accurate reflection of Reality.
understanding is just self. you say you have understanding of reality, and i say, duh. so does an iguana.
You would have to prove this. I see no reason to believe that an iguana has enough consciousness to have any meaningful understanding of Reality. I can't understand why you are trying to trivialize understanding.
awareness is spontaneous. understanding is rigid.
So what? Stupidity is spontaneous, and logic is rigid.
believing in right and wrong is stupid. you, trevor, are stupid.
Is what you said right or wrong? I guess since it's stupid to believe in either, we can never know.
Give me a break. A statement is right if it's an accurate reflection of Reality, and wrong if it isn't. There's nothing stupid about this.
what? i had an opinion and presented it as opinion by prefacing it with, 'i reckon'... so i dont know, when did my assumption become truth?
It never did. Don't try to wriggle out of this: I don't think you can make a believable
post hoc excuse for these incorrect assumptions that paints you as anything but a jerk. I don't appreciate you telling me what I'm like. I have much more self-awareness than you're giving me credit for. So stop spouting off these incorrect opinions about me and other posters.
Unless you can validate them with some strong evidence and a good rationalle, they don't belong.
stable and logical are for beliefs. you persistently miss the point
True: factual beliefs must be stable and logical. You have beliefs as well, but if they aren't stable or logical, they are unstable and illogical. Which means, quite simply, that your beliefs constantly change and don't follow any particular rhyme nor reason.
How could I possibly "get the point" if the point isn't logical? I might as well be talking to a lunatic.
why are you assuming that because you cant comprehend this, that nobody else can? seems to me that you are playing mr.presumption.
I exaggerated for effect; my impression was the other participants in this thread weren't able to get a clear notion of what you were saying. However, I'm certain there are people reading this who can tear you apart far better than I. For instance, I believe that any one of the moderators have listened to enough people like you that they know exactly where your understanding ends and your delusion begins.
well then if you feel you are in 'possession' of such 'true wisdom'... please allow it to communicate itself to me, i am curious.
Certainly. Here are a few fruits that have dropped from the tree of knowledge: A tautology will always be true, and a contradiction will always be false. A thing cannot both exist and not exist. Anything which changes must necessarily have a cause. Reality, whatever it is, cannot be nothing whatsoever. Anything that exists is both finite and caused, and therefore cannot have inherent existence. The Totality is not bounded (Reality is Infinite), and therefore is not itself a thing, nor is it caused, even though it is the cause of the existence of all things.
How is that?
one moment you say, i dont know what you are on about, the next you say, your explainations are not appropriate for the situation, which you wouldnt know if you didnt know what i was on about... you are writing whatever works for you, most women also argue like this.
Maybe I'm a woman in disguise? Sheesh.
You are making a few too many assumptions about what I do and do not understand. When I say "I don't understand this," I am usually really just saying, "you have not explained yourself adequately." I've always felt that a little humility now and then can be useful in getting people to fill in the blanks better. My schoolteachers used to do similar things on my essays. For instance, they'd write "why?" instead of "explain this better", even though they don't really want me to actually see them after class and tell them why. This method doesn't seem to work well with you, however, since you use every conceivable opportunity to attack me.
There's very few theories I have not at some point been exposed to. My biggest complaints with you are that you keep making unnecessary and inaccurate (and, if I must say, rather rude) assumptions about other people, and that you seem to think that you can get away with not explaining yourself fully, clearly, and logically. If I can't understand your train of thought on the first reading, I can guarantee that there will be readers who won't sit down and give you the second reading and the thorough response that your ideas might deserve.
I don't, as Elizabeth does, see you as a troll. I see you as someone who needs to slow the train down.
i am not trying to muddy any waters.
It happens, though.
i called Nordicvs 'grasshopper' cause he used an old zen cliche.
I missed that; it seemed condescending. I apologize.
i do not feel superior or inferior to anything, because i can see both sides of that coin, the illusion is broken.
Just because you see something does not mean it goes away. As I said at the beginning, deep thought requires consistent, lifelong effort. Just because, for instance, you know the word "causality", does not mean it has infused every aspect of your existence.
it is probably irresponsible for me to be arguing this with you at this point, it is causing you to muddy your own waters terribly. you will attach whatever response you are having to me, to it.
Ah, yes, I am well aware of projection, and its consequences.
But you needn't worry about me. I
always make sure that when I make a claim about someone, I can back it up with evidence. For instance, here again is another example of your condescending tone and your attitude of false superiority. You act like I can't handle the truth.
I'm not as stupid as you think. Show me a clear example of me projecting myself onto you, otherwise retract this statement. It is demeaning to both of us.
i do not have this desire
And yet you lament not being able to show all the stupid people of the world the truth? Clearly you do have the desire, or else you wouldn't be trying to spread your gospel here.
not a belief system, it doesnt need belief
something that is there, doesnt need to be believed in.
You aren't excused from believing in things simply because you believe you are. For example: you obviously think what you are saying is true. Therefore, you have a belief.
you are the hoarder of belief systems mate.
"my belief system is superior to yours, ra ra ra"
I don't hoard them. I understand them, and choose to believe in the best. Unless yours is superior to mine, I have no reason to believe in it. It's that simple. There's no ego involved.
"My beliefs" are not even mine, per se. I learned many of my beliefs from people wiser than I. They are only mine because I judged them to be the ones worth holding.
if you lost all your belief systems, and understood nothing about reality, and then looked in, what do you think you would see?
I'd see exactly what I see right now. However, I'd interpret it incorrectly.
However, this question is purely academic. The only way to lose all beliefs would be to lose all consciousness.
incredible that you wont just look and see this for yourself.
It's less incredible than the fact that you care more about this fruitless academic point than thinking clearly and logically about Reality.
i am not saying that what you are saying is complicated, i am saying that you are saying it from within complexity. you are saying what you are saying, very much as a part of reality, your 'understanding' is the 'understanding' of a part, like the iguana's. you are soaked in duality and your own angle. if you wish to see reality clearer, go to war with yourself, lose your understandings. reality will still be there, and whats more, you'll be able to see it with real eyes. but um, i dont wanna be your teacher or nothin
You are recommending that I become an idiot. No thanks, it doesn't seem to have worked all that well for you.
By the way, I am a monist. Like nearly everyone who uses the term, I don't think you know what dualism actually is.
i agreed with the fact you couldnt see it, not with whatever you said about conciousness. and so your cockiness there, has left you with your dress tucked into your pants
Ouch, really? That's embarassing. I assumed that since you only muttered one agreement, you were responding to the philosophic point that I made, and not to the polite bow that I prefaced the statement with. You really do focus on trivialities.
I'm gonna have to be more careful in the future.
