The existentialists would say,But what of existence outside of mind?
what part of 'this is it' have you failed to understand.
do you think this is a rehearsal?
Whaddya reckon?
The existentialists would say,But what of existence outside of mind?
Critics of QRS dismiss the thinking as binary and fail to comprehend the logic of Nagarjuna's emptiness.But what of existence outside of mind?
It looks like that.We are the experience of the universe looking at itself in limited form.
you've made the same distinction.The fact that we have a word for it makes it seem as though we are referring to an entity, when we truly refer to the absence of any entity.
Eric something tells me you still don't get it. Infinity isn't a spacial thing. Differentiation isn't the problem either, I get the feeling you are trying to remove the divisions physically but any and all divisions are in the mind.Eric Orwoll wrote:We have different definitions of the word nothing. Language is so inadequate.
For you,
not finite=nothing
finite=bounded/limited
not finite=not bounded
not bounded=infinite
nothing=infinity
For me,
being=infinity
Nothing is that force which makes finite.
When I say nothing, take it to mean the cause of differentiation.
The cause of differentiation is not having access to all aspects of infinity.
Not having access to all aspects=the not being there of some aspects
There must be a there at which to not be, which is why nothing exists only from a perspective.
Ok, I won't argue with that, but I don't really have a philosophy.Eric Orwoll wrote:Cathy, physical manifestation is the most convenient form to illustrate the concept. Physical existence itself is just a convention, all that exists is information.
I think there are aspects to both of our philosophies of which the other is still unaware.
That's sarcasm.Oh how nice.
Mutual rainbow drops, love and kisses.
Signed Nobody; saying nothing, from nowhere, to no one speaking of nothing ( as if there is someone reading this - but we wise ones know it is all pretend) to say nothing so that all the dull ones can know there is nobody to talk to about anything because there is really and truly nothing there to talk about.
Yipeee - enlightenment.
Who said that?Dennis Mahar wrote:That's sarcasm.Oh how nice.
Mutual rainbow drops, love and kisses.
Signed Nobody; saying nothing, from nowhere, to no one speaking of nothing ( as if there is someone reading this - but we wise ones know it is all pretend) to say nothing so that all the dull ones can know there is nobody to talk to about anything because there is really and truly nothing there to talk about.
Yipeee - enlightenment.
in the background there's a complaint.
where there's a complaint there's a preference.
nothing's wrong, it's just how you prefer it,
its what you like and what you don't.
there you go, what your point of view has been hiding from your point of view is now available to your point of view.
is the opposite of your point of view,
a waste of time?
a waste of space?
both?
Sounds to me like someone is complaining about sarcasm somewhere.Dennis Mahar wrote: That's sarcasm.
in the background there's a complaint
I'm not complaining about sarcasm Diebert. It happens.Sounds to me like someone is complaining about sarcasm somewhere.
that's his winning formula,Who said that?
Everything happens. Even sarcasm can happen. The wip crackles! Suffering.Dennis Mahar wrote: I'm not complaining about sarcasm Diebert. It happens.
Language is alive with nuance.
We all keep trotting out our regulars: beating hearts. You are no different - perhaps the intent but it remains secret.that's his winning formula,
he thinks its unbeatable.
he trots it out on a regular basis.
Simply being precedes any story issuing.All language hides because the sign does. The behind can never be made 'unhidden'. Only disappear but nobody could tell.
Like creation hiding reality. That's the way it is, the only way it can be (otherwise nothing would ever seem).Dennis Mahar wrote: a point of view hides being.
the story as hidey-hole.
It must seem muddled at times, expression wise. Perhaps a sum of possibilities and impossibilities?Dennis Mahar wrote:what about Pam's denial of reason?