The Fundamental Unity of Being

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

I am not terribly concerned with the theory of evolution, for as I have said, things have only a relative existence, and so are not real. For this reason, I understand that things do not have their true origin or causes in other things, that is to say, in their ‘constitutive causes’ – although this is certainly how it appears, but in that one true entity which is the operative causes of all things.

But this is like saying that because things aren't real from the ultimate viewpoint, and because all things have this ultimate cause, we should not study science. For science is none other than the study of how this relative reality works (or seems to work). If everyone said what you just said, would we have technology, and knowledge of the cosmos, and so forth?

On the evolution question, we have precisely a dogma that insists no such one true entity with perfect knowledge necessary. They state that they have sufficient evidence that we have no need of such an entity. Yet you use logic and apply it to the actual world to come to the conclusion that there is need of such an entity.
And why are you unconcerned with that which is not real but is actual, when in the end you state that the two are not only Not Two but in fact interdependent? Why care only for the real when without the actual we would not have the real?

But there may not be any emptiness, no place in which there is 'no thing.

There must necessarily be an emptiness (nothingness), for all things being relative, there must then be that which is absolute, and that which is absolute, being the complement of the relative, cannot be a thing.

Yet at the start of this debate we agreed that there was no such thing as nothingness.

Let me employ a simpler analogy. Imagine that there are a series of light bulbs, such as those that frame the marquee in front of the local movie theatre. If the light bulbs are rapidly turned on and off again, in a progressive sequence, there arises the appearance of a single bulb which is slowly making its way around the marquee. This apparent motion arises because the mind is unable to discriminate between the individual instances of bulbs, and so thinks that there is a single bulb that is persisting through both time and space. Likewise, the cursor on your screen is actually just a progression of individual instances which are first created and then immediately destroyed, with each new refresh cycle of the display.

In that case the cursor is quite similar in function to those light bulb displays. And while the movement is an illusion, it is not an illusion that there is a series of lightings and darkenings.

Yes, this is so. From a relative perspective it is the object which is moving, however, from an absolute perspective it is only the mind that moves. This is why it is said that there are ‘two truths’.

Huh. Well I never had heard that, about the two truths. And what does it mean to say that the mind moves? What is the mind?

[mansman]

Jehu, why you ignore question about your comment in thread "life(style) after death, please there are many curious of your beliefs, they just lack courage to say.

[Jehu]

But this is like saying that because things aren't real from the ultimate viewpoint, and because all things have this ultimate cause, we should not study science. For science is none other than the study of how this relative reality works (or seems to work). If everyone said what you just said, would we have technology, and knowledge of the cosmos, and so forth?

Science is the study of how the relative world ‘appears’ to work, and as such, it can yield only approximations (imperfect knowledge). There is however, another source of knowledge, a knowledge which is perfect, and it to the omniscient source of this perfect knowledge that we must turn our attention. Now, there is great power to be had by those who understand the workings of the relative world – however imperfectly, however, there is a power so vast that it is as yet undreamed of by any scientist; but this power cannot be wielded by any human being, but only by those beings who have gone beyond their human state.

On the evolution question, we have precisely a dogma that insists no such one true entity with perfect knowledge necessary. They state that they have sufficient evidence that we have no need of such an entity. Yet you use logic and apply it to the actual world to come to the conclusion that there is need of such an entity.

As I said, that awareness which is embodied within the sentient being operates according to an imperfect law (deductive reasoning), and so takes the evidence of its senses to be sufficient to infer a conclusion; hence they point to the appearance of a thing and say that it is ‘self-evident’: that it is just as it appears to be.

And why are you unconcerned with that which is not real but is actual, when in the end you state that the two are not only Not Two but in fact interdependent? Why care only for the real when without the actual we would not have the real?

Yes, both the absolute and the relative must necessarily exist, but it is the absolute alone that remains immutable, while everything that arises (the relative) must eventually cease. In other words, whatever you cling to in the relative world will eventual dissolve back into the absolute, just a wave dissolves back into the ocean; for in the end, they are mere shadows of that which is real.

Yet at the start of this debate we agreed that there was no such thing as nothingness.

We agreed that there was no ‘non-being’(non-existence), but we also said that the absolute was not a ‘thing’ (no-thing); although is does exist.

In that case the cursor is quite similar in function to those light bulb displays. And while the movement is an illusion, it is not an illusion that there is a series of lightings and darkenings.

Motion belongs to that class of relative entities which we call ‘imaginary’, while the series of lightenings and darkenings belong to that class of relative entities we call ‘actual’.

Huh. Well I never had heard that, about the two truths. And what does it mean to say that the mind moves? What is the mind?

The Buddhist metaphysicians explain the sentient mind in terms of the Five Elements that comprise its manifestation body: void, consciousness, perception, conceptualization and reaction. Here, the term ‘void’ means that the form or appearance of the sentient mind is ‘space-like’: that it provides a sphere wherein the sentient experience may take place. The essence or content of the sentient mind is ‘consciousness’, and this consciousness comes in six kinds, the five physical sense consciousnesses and the mind consciousness itself, which has its origin in the faculty of memory. The embodiment of the sentient mind is in ‘perception’, which is of two kinds, sensual and psychological. The potency behind the sentient mind lies in the ability to ‘conceptualize’, that is to say, the ability to create our own reality through an imperfect form of reasoning, and a limited knowledge. The function of the sentient mind is manifested in ‘reaction’: what one might call instinctive modes of behaviour designed to enhance our ability to survive in a sometime hostile world.

The sentient mind, like all things, arises as a result of the coming together of these five elements, and like all things, abides in a perpetual state of becoming. Awareness, on the other hand, is that which underlies the sentient mind, and which makes it possible; but this awareness is not a thing, for it is immutable. Nevertheless, because this awareness is temporarily cut off from the Absolute as a whole, it is also cut off from that omniscience which is its natural sate, and so it falls into a state of ignorance, where it imagines itself to be these five elements.

[Jehu]

Jehu, why you ignore question about your comment in thread "life(style) after death, please there are many curious of your beliefs, they just lack courage to say.

The question that you have posed is one that is not easily answered until one possesses a thorough understanding of the propagation of the relative entity. As I have already said, the relative entity is not a real entity at all, and so does not persist through either space or time. In truth, the relative entity is no sooner created when it is then destroyed, and there is no part of it that is transmitted forward to the next instance of the illusion. What does span the gap between each successive instance of a thing is that awareness which is embodied in the thing, and which gives the thing its form or identity. This form or identity is real, that is to say, it is absolute, independent and immutable, and as such, it is subject to neither birth nor death. Thus if one were to ask if Jehu will continue to exist after death, the answer is no, and if one were to ask will Jehu simply cease to exist after death, the answer is also no. Rather, it should be understood that there is an aspect of Jehu that is not real, and so will cease, not only at death, but each and every instant; and an aspect of Jehu that is real, and that is forever immutable.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

Science is the study of how the relative world ‘appears’ to work, and as such, it can yield only approximations (imperfect knowledge).

Nonetheless, you had said:

I am not terribly concerned with the theory of evolution, for as I have said, things have only a relative existence, and so are not real. For this reason, I understand that things do not have their true origin or causes in other things, that is to say, in their ‘constitutive causes’ – although this is certainly how it appears, but in that one true entity which is the operative causes of all things.

I am still curious as to your dismissal of science or just the general study of things. Since the actual is very consistent and the knowledge which produces it is very impressive, and even without our knowledge of science, this manifest world is all of piece in a rather amazing way. And if it weren't, nothing would work.

Now, there is great power to be had by those who understand the workings of the relative world – however imperfectly, however, there is a power so vast that it is as yet undreamed of by any scientist; but this power cannot be wielded by any human being, but only by those beings who have gone beyond their human state.

What sort of beings and what do you know about them?

What can it mean to not be a thing yet exist? It is not the same as nothingness? I do believe I keep coming back to this question, which bugs me intensely, and you have already said that we cannot say anything about it, other than that it is.

[Jehu]

I am still curious as to your dismissal of science or just the general study of things. Since the actual is very consistent and the knowledge which produces it is very impressive, and even without our knowledge of science, this manifest world is all of piece in a rather amazing way. And if it weren't, nothing would work.

It is not that I deny the importance of all relative knowledge, for such knowledge can be of great benefit to the world; however, it can also bring unspeakable destruction and suffering when those who wield its power are without wisdom. For this reason, I say that one should first turn one’s attention to attaining perfect knowledge – and the wisdom that accompanies it.

What sort of beings and what do you know about them?

Such beings are all around us, in every walk of life, rich and poor, and may be recognized by their actions; for the awakened ones do what ever needs to be done, with no regard for themselves, and so their actions are always appropriate. Sometimes they are revered, and sometimes they are persecuted or even killed, but mostly they are simply ignored; for they are taken at best to be fools, and at worst, madmen. In any event, they are accepting of whatever lot they have been given, and are moved by neither praise nor criticism from their goal; which is to relieve the suffering of other beings and awaken those whom have the capacity to do so.

What can it mean to not be a thing yet exist? It is not the same as nothingness? I do believe I keep coming back to this question, which bugs me intensely, and you have already said that we cannot say anything about it, other than that it is.

Remember, a ‘thing’ is that which arises out of the coming together of other things (its constitutive causes), and so has only a relative existence. For this reason, it is said that time is the creator of all things, and that which is born must eventually die. There is, however, that which is not born, and which is not put together by time; but because it is indivisible (not composite), we cannot say ‘what’ comprises it; that is to say, what are its constitutive causes. Nevertheless, this one true existent, because it cannot be perceived – for it is the constitutive causes of a thing which render it perceptible to the senses, has the appearance of empty space (i.e., nothingness).

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

however, there is a power so vast that it is as yet undreamed of by any scientist; but this power cannot be wielded by any human being, but only by those beings who have gone beyond their human state.

Such beings are all around us, in every walk of life, rich and poor, and may be recognized by their actions; for the awakened ones do what ever needs to be done, with no regard for themselves, and so their actions are always appropriate.

What then, do you mean by going beyond their human state, and why do you think they are so common? I would have thought it quite rare. And what kind of vast power do you refer to?

[Iolaus]

Mikiel,

Based on your last explanation or clarification after Jehu's objection to your understanding of time and Now, it is my opinion that he was not correct in his original assessment of it, but he has not updated his response. So far as I can see, you do not regard the Now as relating to any kind of time segment.

[mikiel]

Mikiel,

Based on your last explanation or clarification after Jehu's objection to your understanding of time and Now, it is my opinion that he was not correct in his original assessment of it, but he has not updated his response. So far as I can see, you do not regard the Now as relating to any kind of time segment.

Correct. I've clearly and repeatedly stated that Now is the perpetual, unsegmented present.... not minute slices of "event duration," i.e., "time."

He does not reply because he has no grasp of the above.

Likewise, he denies the reality of the ever-changing manifest cosmos quite arbitrarily, with no reply at all to my challenge, as follows:

BTW, how is it that "things" (in the manifest, relative sense) are not "real" just because they are temporary? They are born/manifest as individual forms, sustained for the "lifetime" of the form (star, galaxy, human) and then die or disintegrate via natural law.

What is so unreal about nature/cosmos just because it (we) all have a 'life cycle.' It's very real while it lasts. (You can deny mikiel as an in-corporated entity... and this guy will die, but it's ("my") relative reality NOW (oopse... lost you there!) can not be denied.

(Ed)... my PRESENT life is very real, relatively speaking, notwithstanding your denial of my reality on the grounds that my form is not eternal.)

[Iolaus]

Mikiel,

He doesn't answer, I think, not because he doesn't grasp it, but because you don't stay with the thread and jump in in various spots arguing over word definitions.

He distinguishes between the real, which is immutable and unchangeable, and the actual which changes and is comprised of more than one element.

[mikiel]

Mikiel,

He doesn't answer, I think, not because he doesn't grasp it, but because you don't stay with the thread and jump in in various spots arguing over word definitions.

He distinguishes between the real, which is immutable and unchangeable, and the actual which changes and is comprised of more than one element.

You are treating him like fragile royalty (or the over-protected holy man) who needs protection from unruly challenges to his supreme doctrine.
Are you now his interpreter/proxy also?

True, I am not a disciple hanging on his every word. I just jump in occassionally with questions and different perspectives on specific points which interest me. There is no all-or-nothing rule for participation in a thread here. He is free to ignore me as the Royal Trinity does.

But, as a matter of perhaps common interest, I'll ask you, as his proxy, why "real" must be defined as permanent/unchanging/absolute. (See my quote in post above for detail.)

As to time and the now, compare my reiteration in post above with his reply to you, as follows:

Iolaus: "Well, in that case, what do you make of ideas like the 'eternal now'?"
Jehu:
"I’m not certain that I can even imagine such a state. Can you?"

Apparently he still can't imagine it, even after my best and repeated efforts to clarify the Truth of the ever-present now...
which, btw makes what is manifest now real tho when "it" disappears, it 'ain't real no more.'

"Actual" in my vocabulary is the contrast with "potential," and there are gradients of probability of becoming actual for all things which are now potential, from remotely possible to extremely probable. In this context, whatever becomes actual is also real, however impermanent (which all "things" are.)
Do you too believe that the manifest world/cosmos is not real?

[Jehu]

What then, do you mean by going beyond their human state, and why do you think they are so common? I would have thought it quite rare. And what kind of vast power do you refer to?

To go beyond the human state, which is predominately a state of ignorance, is to become an authentic human being; that is to say, a being who’s activities are in full accordance with its intended function. In order to accomplish this transformation, the being must completely transcend the five elements that comprise the relative (apparent) personality, and in so doing, permit the intention of the one true Being to take full control of the sentient body. Such beings, given that they are one with the true Being, are possessed of the same characteristics - omniscience and omnipotence.

When I said that these beings were all around us, I did not mean to imply that they are not rare, for they are indeed; however, given the vast numbers of people living on the planet today, there are still thousand of awakened ones among us, albeit at varying degrees of awakening. Some people, like yourself, are only in a shallow sleep, and so are easily awakened, while others are so entrenched in the dream that it will be a very long time before they will be able to awaken. Nevertheless, all human being will eventually awaken, though not without a great deal of suffering; for just as a pot is formed upon a potter’s wheel, the enlightened being is formed upon the wheel of suffering.

[mikiel]

Jehu:

Such beings, given that they are one with the true Being, are possessed of the same characteristics - omniscience and omnipotence.

No one on Earth or anywhere else is omniscient or omnipotent.
Anyone who believes otherwise is as deluded as Jehu.

How 'bout you, Iolaus? You are his First Disciple here. Are you buying it?

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

To go beyond the human state, which is predominately a state of ignorance, is to become an authentic human being; that is to say, a being who’s activities are in full accordance with its intended function.

In that case, it might be better to say that they achieve the true human state.

Such beings, given that they are one with the true Being, are possessed of the same characteristics - omniscience and omnipotence.

Yes, along with Mikiel I note that this is a surprising statement. Especially since you say there are thousands - albeit perhaps only a minority of them have surrendered to this degree.

Some great masters seem to possess omniscient abilities, others don't. I have wondered if or what the relation is between realization, and the ability to tap into the wisdom or knowledge of the universe. Some people who are definitely not enlightened seem to be born with greater abilities in this area. It might be a natural supposition to correlate these abilities with spiritual advancement, but perhaps they are not. Why is it that a thing like mind to mind communication (ESP) is sporadic and not consistent?
++++++++++++++++++
Mikiel,

Well, you are right that I should not act like a proxy. You asked a question that is part of the vocabulary we have gone over, and no, I don't find it very natural to call the actual 'not real.'

It seems to me that the importance of defining real as the immutable, and for emphasizing the point of the contingency (emptiness) of all relative things, is that our default mode is to not see that. We see only half of a whole reality, thus we are given to distortion and delusion.

[mikiel]

Iolaus:

Well, you are right that I should not act like a proxy. You asked a question that is part of the vocabulary we have gone over, and no, I don't find it very natural to call the actual 'not real.'

It seems to me that the importance of defining real as the immutable, and for emphasizing the point of the contingency (emptiness) of all relative things, is that our default mode is to not see that. We see only half of a whole reality, thus we are given to distortion and delusion.

I was very specific in my last post as to how I use "actual" and "real." Your reply didn't touch at all upon what I said except to hedge as to how you "... don't find it very natural to call the actual 'not real.'" (Is the cosmos real or not in your own sense of what is real?) You merely invoked "the vocabulary we have gone over" dismissing my meaning out of hand. This is not conversation/dialogue. It is rather your defense of his indoctrination, as if this whole tome of a thread, has established "reality" through mere repetition of Jehu's idiosyncratic usage of the term in the context of his doctrine.

Your last paragraph makes no sense to me. Please clarify.

As to omniscience and omnipotence... the challenge stands. I must presume you know the meanings of the words... all knowing and all powerful.
Absolute nonsense!... an unmistakable earmark of delusion, and it doesn't require a career in psychotherapy to discern this.

How about responding to the specific content of the above and my last few posts here as a "free-thinker" yourself... for a refreshing change from your role as Jehu's apologist and protector. You did admit to the folly in being his proxy.

[Jehu]

It is rather your defense of his indoctrination, as if this whole tome of a thread, has established "reality" through mere repetition of Jehu's idiosyncratic usage of the term in the context of his doctrine.

The following definitions may be found in the current Oxford Dictionary under the sub-heading of philosophical usage: “real 8. Philos. having an absolute and necessary and not merely contingent existence.”; and “absolute 2.a Philos. that which can exist without relation to anything else.” So you see, given that we are presently engaged in a ‘philosophical' enquiry, any personal meanings that you or I may attribute to these terms are immaterial, and so its not my usage that is idiosyncratic, but yours; for I am using the terms in the conventional prescibe fashion, while you are not.

[mikiel]

[/quote]The following definitions may be found in the current Oxford Dictionary under the sub-heading of philosophical usage: “real 8. Philos. having an absolute and necessary and not merely contingent existence.”; and “absolute 2.a Philos. that which can exist without relation to anything else.” So you see, given that we are presently engaged in a ‘philosophical' enquiry, any personal meanings that you or I may attribute to these terms are immaterial, and so its not my usage that is idiosyncratic, but yours; for I am using the terms in the conventional prescibe fashion, while you are not.[/quote]

No, it's not about "personal meanings" for me. So you want to appeal to authority and cite selected "philosophical usage."

OK. I counter with Wiki's presentation on "reality", as follows:
(The underlined is my emphasis... a fave of mine, as are the asterisks around the last sentence, emphasizing the broad perspective as distinct from your narrow usage.)

Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist". [1] The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. Reality in this sense may include both being and nothingness, whereas existence is often restricted to being (compare with nature). In other words, "reality", as a philosophical category, includes the formal concept of "nothingness" and articulations and combinations of it with other concepts (those possessing extension in physical objects or processes for example).

In the strict sense of western philosophy, there are levels or gradation to the nature and conception of reality. These levels include, from the most subjective to the most rigorous: phenomenological reality, truth, fact, and axiom.

Main article: Fact
A fact or factual entity is a phenomenon that is perceived as an elemental principle. It is rarely one that could be subject to personal interpretation. Instead, it is most often an observed phenomenon of the natural world. The proposition 'viewed from most places on Earth, the sun rises in the east', is a fact. It is a fact for people belonging to any group or nationality, regardless of which language they speak or which part of the hemisphere they come from. The Galilean proposition in support of the Copernican theory, that the sun is the center of the solar system is one that states the fact of the natural world. However, during his lifetime Galileo was ridiculed for that factual proposition, because far too few people had a consensus about it in order to accept it as a truth[citation needed]. Fewer propositions are factual in content in the world, as compared to the many truths shared by various communities, which are also fewer than the innumerable individual worldviews. Much of scientific exploration, experimentation, interpretation and analysis is done on this level.

This view of reality is well expressed by Philip K. Dick's statement that "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Philosophy addresses two different aspects of the topic of reality: the nature of reality itself, and the relationship between the mind (as well as language and culture) and reality.

On the one hand, ontology is the study of being, and the central topic of the field is couched, variously, in terms of being, existence, "what is", and reality.** The task in ontology is to describe the most general categories of reality and how they are interrelated.**

[Jehu]

No, it's not about "personal meanings" for me. So you want to appeal to authority and cite selected "philosophical usage."

OK. I counter with Wiki's presentation on "reality", as follows:
(The underlined is my emphasis... a fave of mine, as are the asterisks around the last sentence, emphasizing the broad perspective as distinct from your narrow usage.)

Yes, mine is a “narrow usage”, for it is the ‘philosophical usage’, and such precision of meaning is essential if one is to carry on a rational enquiry. I have never said that there were not other possible meanings associated with the term, but simply that it is this one particular meaning that I wish the reader to call to mind in, whenever I employ of the term. Further, I have previously admitted that in the common usage of the term ‘real’ it is generally taken to be equivalent to the term ‘actual’, and so we are not in disagreement there; however, I have also stated that it is in our taking the two terms (real and actual) to be equivalent that we fall into error, and I have explained in detail why this is so – though I don’t suppose you made the effort to read that section of the thread.

With respect to the authority of the Dictionary in determining what definitions are acceptable, let me remind you that the meaning of any linguistic term is established through public convention, and as a dictionary is a expert compilation of the various meanings that are in common usage among a particular linguistic group, there is no better way to establish the meaning of a term than through consulting a current dictionary – not even by consulting Wikipedia. Now, while I admit that there can be more than one meaning to a given term, I have made it abundantly clear which of the possible meanings I intend the reader to bring to mind, and I see no reason why I should argue this point with you further – simply because you didn’t bother to follow the entire thread.

[mikiel]

Jehu,
You are correct in assuming that I have not read, and have no intention to read, all 467 posts in this thread. In fact I have only read those posts (and their immediate contexts) to which I have replied.

You wrote:

Yes, mine is a “narrow usage”, for it is the ‘philosophical usage’, and such precision of meaning is essential if one is to carry on a rational enquiry. I have never said that there were not other possible meanings associated with the term, but simply that it is this one particular meaning that I wish the reader to call to mind in, whenever I employ of the term. Further, I have previously admitted that in the common usage of the term ‘real’ it is generally taken to be equivalent to the term ‘actual’, and so we are not in disagreement there; however, I have also stated that it is in our taking the two terms (real and actual) to be equivalent that we fall into error, and I have explained in detail why this is so – though I don’t suppose you made the effort to read that section of the thread.

I have responded to what interests me, and the vast majority of your formal verbosity does not. (I have "scanned" a good deal of it.)

I have called your attention to other "meanings" which "come to mind" outside yours... as per actual dialogue on any subject, as contrasted with your attempts to indoctrinate in the "precise" terms your special philosophy. I have shared my take on the real and the actual in disagreement with yours. (Therefore I have sinned!... one must assume from your grandiose and judgemental perspective.)

To briefly touch on the pedantic subject of definitions, you wrote:

...let me remind you that the meaning of any linguistic term is established through public convention,

I shared a broad view of "public convention" regarding the meaning of reality, and I am not bound to limit my discourse to your admittedly "narrow usage." It's your thread, but your attitude is one of intolerance of all perspectives which disagree with your narrow and plodding insistence on your own meanings.
Case in point... your concluding remarks:

I have made it abundantly clear which of the possible meanings I intend the reader to bring to mind, and I see no reason why I should argue this point with you further – simply because you didn’t bother to follow the entire thread.

I dare to "bring to mind" alternative meanings. Shame on me! Again, I follow what interest me... certainly not the whole exaggerated formality and verbosity of your whole thread.

Your ignorance on the subject of the timeless present as ongoing, unsegmented (into however small units of "time") reality, including all that is *presently* manifest... is unmistakable and glaring. Yet you refuse to reply to my very specific criticism. Total avoidance is not dialogue. But I confront your determination to indoctrinate, so you ignore my criticism.

Finally, I am certain that you are a deluded fool. I have been a psychotherapist for 22 yrs, and anyone who claims to be omniscient and omnipotent (or even that there are such individuals) qualifies immediately and beyond debate as deluded... most likely in the specific diagnostic classification as a "paranoid schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur."

So... there you have it. Do with it what you will.
BTW... omniscience would include detailed knowledge of my personal life. Care to share some stuff that only I and my intimates know.
(Oh... I'll bet you have another special meaning for the word "omniscient.")
How 'bout omnipotence...
How come you are allowing all the suffering in the world...
another special definition, I must assume!

[Jehu]

Mikeil,

With all due respect, I can no longer converse with you on this thread, for it is clear to me that you are of an irrational state of mind, and my numerous attempts to reason with you have done nothing but antagonize you further. I sorely wish that this were not the case, and I wish you well in your enquiries, but I cannot in good conscience continue. I will make no attempt to block you from the thread, for you are entitled to you own opinions, and I will happily allow the other participants to judge for themselves what is true; but as for myself, I will no longer respond to your postings.

Sincerely,

Jehu

[mikiel]

Jehu:

With all due respect, I can no longer converse with you on this thread, for it is clear to me that you are of an irrational state of mind

To the forum:
What specifically was irrational in my replies to Jehu?
He did a clean break from all my challenges.
I call this cowardice and avoidance of meaningful dialogue. But there has been no pretense of real dialogue in this thread... all Jehu's supreme doctrine, immune to all challenges... such as summarized in my last post.

If there is any doubt as to his delusional state, do not "PM" me. (I seldom even check that little flag.) Post it here, and I will elaborate on how he fits the syndrome. (I'm not into the diagnostic categories at all, as definitive labels, but he is unquestionably "crazy" in his own little metaphysical world.)

And if he (or others he knows) are "omniscient and omnipotent" let him address my last challenge on that point.
Otherwise... let him continue to demonstrate his psychosis without further encouragement from participants in this forum.

[Carl G]

I will make no attempt to block you from the thread, for you are entitled to you own opinions, and I will happily allow the other participants to judge for themselves what is true;

*in a whisper*

I'm curious as to how such an attempt would look. Is Jehu an administrator? Does he or she have the power to "allow other participants to judge?" Would he or she appeal to administration?

I'm also curious as to why Jehu, with his near perfect diction, chronically misspells Iolaus, and more than once has also misspelled mikiel.

Granted these are minute curiosities in the light of the extreme seriousness of this thread (probably the most serious one this board has seen, and possibly the most serious thread on any message board ever).

I wonder if this post will be blocked. Perhaps even burned out by God Himself.

[guest_of_logic]

To the forum:
What specifically was irrational in my replies to Jehu?

I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to call your replies "irrational", but I definitely think that some of them were unfair. Jehu presented you with solid evidence (from a respected dictionary) that his definition of "real" in a philosophical context was valid, and the matter should have ended there, but you chose to continue it, presumably because you simply couldn't bear to allow that Jehu might have been justified in his philosophical usage of the word "real".

He did a clean break from all my challenges.
I call this cowardice and avoidance of meaningful dialogue.

Actually I think that you are partly responsible for the lack of meaningful dialogue. Jehu has made it clear how he wants the thread to progress: with people following carefully and accepting or not accepting (with reasons) the various stages of his philosophy as he presents them, and prior to continuing on to the next stage. You, instead, barely read anything and throw out challenges based on isolated things that he has said, without having any idea of the overall context within which he is presenting them. Again, not very fair, and not respectful of Jehu and his intended approach.

[Iolaus]

Also, the Wiki definition of reality does not conflict with Jehu's definition of the word 'real' because the two are not synonymous.

[mikiel]

guest,
I allow as how his definition from the Oxford is valid, *and* I was attempting to broaden the perspective on "reality" (the noun referenced by the adjective, "real", quite obviously, Iolaus.)

Jehu insists on his narrow usage in support of his doctrine. Fine. But consensus on what reality means goes far beyond his usage... that's all.
Then you wrote:

Actually I think that you are partly responsible for the lack of meaningful dialogue. Jehu has made it clear how he wants the thread to progress: with people following carefully and accepting or not accepting (with reasons) the various stages of his philosophy as he presents them, and prior to continuing on to the next stage. You, instead, barely read anything and throw out challenges based on isolated things that he has said, without having any idea of the overall context within which he is presenting them. Again, not very fair, and not respectful of Jehu and his intended approach.

I agree that my confrontational style as contrasted with his strict formality is more than partly responsible for the lack of meaningful dialogue. I certainly do not fit into the mold of "how he wants the thread to progress"...
My challenges were, as stated, specific to aspects of his presentation that I found interesting or in error. He has opted to avoid reply to my challenges on these specifics.

I don't think 'fairness' requires that I read the whole thread, as my interest was very focused on specifics... most recently his obvious ignorance about the ever present now in relation to the human artifact, "time" and his obvious delusion about omniscience and omnipotence.
He has tried to sweep these two challenges under the rug. It must be an embarrassment to him but it is just my usual radically honesty.

So he has put up a wall to protect his delusion on the "omni(s)" and his ignorance about the eternally ongoing now.
So be it.