GENIUS FORUMS

Dennis, do you equate ignorance with fear of supply? And enlightenment/wisdom with finding supply?

Implicit in that question is territory, supply and demand.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

It's this mental chase which you oppose inside your self more even than in others but unfortunately those who do not hunt become haunted!

Yeah, well 'lizard brain' and its supply problems are a means to an end. To what end? Shooting bambi huh?

And you think you're somehow beyond this just by shooting down your lizard brain like Weininger shot his heart?

What's being "pointed" out to you are your own daggers and which "beast" you are stabbing in the dark of a blind spot.

Hotel California...

What's being "pointed" out to you are your own daggers and which "beast" you are stabbing in the dark of a blind spot.

equals

What's being "pointed" out to you are your own daggers and which "beast" you are stabbing in the dark of a blind spot.

Ah yes...the split tongue kiss of death...

The two-pronged attack with a-double-edged sword!

Is that a double barrow shotgun in your pocket or....?

Ah yes...the split tongue kiss of death...

The two-pronged attack with a-double-edged sword!

Is that a double barrow shotgun in your pocket or....?

equals

Ah yes...the split tongue kiss of death...

The two-pronged attack with a-double-edged sword!

Is that a double barrow shotgun in your pocket or....?

A matter of identity.

Not at all, it's a matter of meaningless reproduction. But there's one original, a complex of origins perhaps, and with every copy and reading the understanding changes with its place in space, time and mind.

You refuted inherent existence.
You said dependent origination.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Not at all, it's a matter of meaningless reproduction. But there's one original, a complex of origins perhaps, and with every copy and reading the understanding changes with its place in space, time and mind.

Space, time and mind is a matter of identity. To be reckoned by.

TheImmanent wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Not at all, it's a matter of meaningless reproduction. But there's one original, a complex of origins perhaps, and with every copy and reading the understanding changes with its place in space, time and mind.

Space, time and mind is a matter of identity. To be reckoned by.

i.e., just as you cannot step into the same stream twice, the same identity cannot read the same thing twice.

Any identity influenced by space, time and mind is subject to change.

Cahoot wrote:

TheImmanent wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Not at all, it's a matter of meaningless reproduction. But there's one original, a complex of origins perhaps, and with every copy and reading the understanding changes with its place in space, time and mind.

Space, time and mind is a matter of identity. To be reckoned by.

i.e., just as you cannot step into the same stream twice, the same identity cannot read the same thing twice.

Any identity influenced by space, time and mind is subject to change.

Make-belief.

Dennis Mahar wrote:You refuted inherent existence. You said dependent origination.

Indeed as it refutes everything you say, everything you think as well. Bliss.

But what I point out is the power you're wielding: Dennis the Terminator, going back in time to wipe out all "inherent existence".

Of course you are "right" but the way you're wielding remains very aggressive, like some pesticide taking out herbs or like a shock collar silencing your own barking monkey. Do you never scrutinize yourself at times? Just for the hell of it? Improving the tune, tuning the tone, toning the dance?

TheImmanent wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Not at all, it's a matter of meaningless reproduction. But there's one original, a complex of origins perhaps, and with every copy and reading the understanding changes with its place in space, time and mind.

Space, time and mind is a matter of identity. To be reckoned by.

No matter, it never is and can't be self-similar to anything else either. Anything that "is" can be replicated. But nothing really can. Then there's facsimile and passing likeness. Ego material.

No, wait. I do know how the stasis presiding over the forum for the last few years is relevant to philosophy: Got to keep the loonies on the path!

la la la. I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

No really, are you serious!?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

TheImmanent wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Not at all, it's a matter of meaningless reproduction. But there's one original, a complex of origins perhaps, and with every copy and reading the understanding changes with its place in space, time and mind.

Space, time and mind is a matter of identity. To be reckoned by.

No matter, it never is and can't be self-similar to anything else either. Anything that "is" can be replicated. But nothing really can. Then there's facsimile and passing likeness. Ego material.

There are infinite definitions, defined in relation to each other. Change and replication is a generalization.

Of course you are "right" but the way you're wielding remains very aggressive, like some pesticide taking out herbs or like a shock collar silencing your own barking monkey. Do you never scrutinize yourself at times? Just for the hell of it? Improving the tune, tuning the tone, toning the dance?

Go to the Complaints Dept.
there's a coin in the slot Cuddle-Machine.
You'll need a pre-script-ion.

you refuted inherent existence.
you said dependent origination.

there are many conventional 'truths'.
only one ultimate truth.

Bliss.

Of course, the ultimate truth generated as shibboleth, an inconvenience, inappropriate to mention is dependent arising.

Why is bliss ultimate reality?

If you were Enlightened you'd know all the answers to everything.

Why is bliss ultimate reality?

You're saying no in a conversation where you think a piece of leggo fits appropriately based on the past.
something wasn't supplied according to a set of rules.

being is a priori to facticity/historicality.

Imagine spirit, mind, body as harmonic environment.

Kunga wrote:If you were Enlightened you'd know all the answers to everything.

How do you know this?

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Why is bliss ultimate reality?

You're saying no in a conversation where you think a piece of leggo fits appropriately based on the past.
something wasn't supplied according to a set of rules.

being is a priori to facticity/historicality.

Imagine spirit, mind, body as harmonic environment.

Brook trickling. Wind blowing. Bird singing. Baby crying. Lion yawning. Body farting. Being a priori to facts and history. Pure sensory awareness.

Why do you insert the mood (condition) of bliss?

movingalways wrote:

Kunga wrote:If you were Enlightened you'd know all the answers to everything.

How do you know this?

Well..what's the point of Enlightenment ?
I would hope that you would know the Ultimate Truth, and if you KNOW THE ULTIMATE TRUTH you would know all there is to know.

Why do you insert the mood (condition) of bliss?

You're saying no because bliss is against the rules.
based on circumstantial evidence.

Dennis Mahar wrote:There are many conventional 'truths', only one ultimate truth.
Generated as shibboleth, an inconvenience, inappropriate to mention is dependent arising.

One Truth to rule them all, One Truth to find them,
One Truth to bring them all and in Ignorance bind them.

There's no liberation, no "bliss", if you can't cast that one truth into the fire. If you don't then it becomes a dark tower of self-serving Ego.
For this purpose these discussions exist. Otherwise we're just looking at another cult, another self-help to hide someone's ignorance behind.

What's it gonna be, Dennis?