Why causality is an illusion

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Talking Ass » Sun Nov 06, 2011 2:46 am

A Donkey, Facing Sure Defeat at the Hands of the Infidel, Exclaims (with a note of Sheer Terror in his Voice): "God help us..."

But, nary missing a beat, cheerfully declares:

"Tonight, I'm proud to present
a new look,
a new sound,
a new approach, that cErTainLy spells:

(click here to find out...)
(Dennis, if you wore earrings like that I might feel differently about you...)
(Bonus Track)
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby mental vagrant » Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:03 am

EDIT:Dennis When the rapids flow, know the water is without malice, it's not morphological.
unbound
User avatar
mental vagrant
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: A flick of green to be seen between alone between two giants

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Talking Ass » Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:40 am

The Necessary GF Anthem? (I get first dibs on Lani Hall btw).
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:21 am

MV,
EDIT:Dennis When the rapids flow, know the water is without malice, it's not morphological.



We're machines all right.
Existential machines.
causes/conditions, pieces/parts.

Henri Bergson wrote a book showing the essence of laughter is 'seeing' human beings act like machines.

Alex gets that much and taunts others with it.
He just doesn't get his own machinery.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby mental vagrant » Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:08 am

Talking Ass wrote:The Necessary GF Anthem? (I get first dibs on Lani Hall btw).


Does that put you on the hill?

Head in the sky, detached from earthly matter?
unbound
User avatar
mental vagrant
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: A flick of green to be seen between alone between two giants

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Sun Nov 06, 2011 2:01 pm

Quinn was writing about this years ago, can't find it.

The existential condition 'stuck in glee'.
In those old 'ghost in the machine' French existentialist bete noir movies,
to depict the condition,
they set up a room of mirrors,
that turned on a carousel,
with grinding organ music,
people were looking in the mirrors and at each other, pointing and laughing and laughing,
and not giving a flying fuck.
the whole set rotated slowly,
and the camera pulled away gradually,
and the set grew smaller and smaller,

it went on and on,
giving the impression of people stuck in a gruesome 'reality possibility' for eternity.

there's gotta be a better way and fortunately there is.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Talking Ass » Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:46 am

Diebert wrote:
Perhaps. Nietzsche categorized Buddhism as a very "late" religion and although healthier than Christianity also nihilistic. One could question his grasp on Buddhism as well as his understanding of Christian theology but there's also this, a hopeful statement by a younger Nietzsche you might appreciate.
I can only put it to you like this: if your Chinesedom or your Asianification of the Western Opus produces individuals whose expressions are as reduced, discriminatory, vacuous quite often, as the You-Know-Who, and do not incorporate a whole human being [insert here 5 years of critique by yours truly], then I would say one or two things: One, whatever M. Nietzsche may have been referring to has not been achieved here and is not even presented as a goal; and 2) those who are 'chopping & channeling' need to remain open to new influences, new currents of 'vitality', and to avoid a dogmatic codification [reduction, retreat into binaries] of 'enlightenment'.

For This Reason [and 328 others] The Talking Ass
Has Incarnated in This Dreary Plane
Of Partial 'Existence'.


So, back to the drawing board, back to the texts, back into the body, back into non-knowing and uncertainty, back into Poetry and a childish lyricism, and back [metaphorically speaking] to sniffing panties and getting high on it. It really just goes on & on from there. There is so very much to 'go back to' and so much that cannot [and will not!] be left behind, yet. But I do not actually think that you understand what I mean, even if you were able to discern the forms I present through the mists of deep irony.

All the stuff that is stuffed away, relegated to the closet; all the fake appaearances and the BS acts; this dressing up in Wisdom's Robes: it all has to be rethought. You've got to send someone down into the closet with the rolled up girl's underware, the ancient dust-bunnies, even an old, semi-mummified human turd, and pull it all out into the light of day!

The original will (causation)(speaking of the Founders) may have been worthy, or even noble, but when the original exclusions were made, these terrifyingly costly Original Errors, the whole Opus got off, wavering and unstable, on the wrong foot.

I have Come To Restore Balance.
All Hail the Ass Who Talks!


Perhaps it's just the age. But the dead of winter and cemeteries have also attraction and beauty. I keep wondering why you're so longing back to summer, like Nietzsche described so dramatically: "After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave - a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. And we - we still have to vanquish his shadow, too".
How do you know I am 'longing back to summer' and not patiently waiting out the twilight but yet discerning those first imperceptible shifts in the coloration of the night that fortell of Dawning? True, there is great natural beauty when the world of plants dies in Winter and the light rakes over the landscape. But it is quite different to watch grown men, or boys, drink down poisons which (seem to be) stunting them. You know as well as I that when the spirit of man strangles, historically it has produced rather dark periods where the sickness is purged out. Why must I accept in my contemporaries, if indeed I see clearly, if indeed I discern something 'real & considerable', a short-changing of their own selves? Why can I not exclaim? jump up and down? refer to beauty & vitality & life & the heart in the hope of reminding them---and all of us---what we 'should not cut out of ourselves'?

But what would it lead to really? At best an open-ended conversation where one might conclude the purpose is actually having that conversation itself, the medium becoming message and purpose, in a sense exchanging for reasons beyond any supposed rationality. Is that really so refreshing? What I'm missing here in your reasoning are the fruits of having lived life attentively and thoroughly enough to have noticed this.
In light of what I have written above, though I know that such a possibilitiy or even 'need' is contemptable to you, I think that 'we' have to always use ourselves as a reference point, the Being in which ideas are operating. If I notice, say, nihilism, or decadence, and speak about it 'in them' or abstractly but not in myself, I think that I am not doing full service to my METHOD of doing intellect (or philosophy, or spirituality, or what-have-you). Again, it all extends from the body. Mind inseperably connected to body. Body as the vessel and 'tool' of living, expression, etc. And sure, in saying this I am referring to what around here is clearly a sin: an actor [artist] has to live @truth within his body, within his self. An actor becomes significant [human, vital] when he succeeds in being honest with himself about WHO HE IS. You [and Dennis, and Pam, and David, etc.] can pull out of your hat all those 'escape tactics' to avoid having to deal with the essential truth, but I cannot. At the same time, you know and I know, that I 'use' 'you' and my experience here [in my body and in my 'truth'] to continue to explore ways of thinking about life, spirituality, expression, gesture, meaning, value, and what I may do with my little segment of alive-time. So, nothing is lost here, and it is all advantage, pure gain!

Yeah, so become a fantasy and emotion prone woman in short? That's what those types of women would advice but all the while secretly desiring all that harsh 101... (metaphorically spoken)
Funny, I am reading about Method Acting (based on Stanislavsky's theories, techniques), about Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler and Sanford Meisner. I am following the lines and the impulses that get opened up as I come into 'your' space (you-plural in the sense of this forum-space), deal with everything that you OMIT, and then try to find what exactly it is and why it appears to be so necessary and so vital. If I were your acting coach, which is to say the artist's coach who was trying to help you, I would suggest that you MUST, you simply MUST very conscientiously, very consciously, become a woman for a certain amount of time! Yes! You will need to learn how to move like a woman, lie on your couch like a woman, think like a woman, paint your lips like a woman, and even (for I am a serious acting coach!) I will have you develop a very sophisticated imagining of what it is like to have a gorgeous little pussy all your own! You will have to imagine caring for it, pruning it so to speak, trimming it, dressing it in silk panties; imagining it getting licked by some 'tall dark & handsome' caballero. You'll have to dress up like a woman and HONESTLY mince about in front of the mirror, and really take yourself seriously! You will have to dress up in drag and go out onto the streets of your town (possibly not so unusual in your neck of the woods) and charm some of the local men, maybe bring one home for some '101'? In short, you must really find out what being a woman is. Maybe, you will even 'give birth', maybe you will decide to have a little dolly that (as part of the exercise you understand) you care for, pamper, and of course breast-feed. But the really interesting thing will be when, from your position within a woman's body, you approach all over again all this stuff that interests you: Baudrillard, Nietzsche, neo-Buddhism, Chinesistry, etc. ;-)

I honestly have begun to conclude that something like this is pretty much what every one of the Hyper-Men of GF needs to do (for themselves). Then, we can resume these very interesting conversations but from a new perspective. What do you think?

And You Heard It
Right From The Ass's Mouth
On a Forum For Geniuses
And You Exclaimed:
"Holy Fuck! This Ass Says
Some Weird-Ass Shit!


If ones suffering lies into not understanding the specifics of the subject-object relationship of a given age then perhaps studying and understanding those might be a cure? But if ones suffering lies into not understanding "why" things have to be like they are (: their causes) then understanding causality might lead to a cure as well? Although knowing exactly why one is suffering does not automatically relieve it. One needs the capacity as well to transcend it which is not a given at all. One other factor here might be the often hidden desire for suffering. How many people really are seeking liberation anyway? It seems the case most aren't even sure what suffering is, let alone knowing how any "cure" would look like.
I guess this is the Word-Driven Path to Wholeness? ;-) As a result of reading what you have written, and going back over your linked reference, I still have to say that 'it' has to be demonstrated in your body. I realize, naturally, that this forum is not a physical and visual place, but (in my case anyway) I have seen so much more clearly that our ideas and our ideals have to be brought down, into our selves. If there is a 'cure' it will be demonstrated with life-choices one is making.

Or, one will die trying... ;-)
___________________________________________________________

Dennis wrote:
There's gotta be a better way and fortunately there is.

Fortunately indeed! Put wings on an Ass and fly!
Last edited by Talking Ass on Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby mental vagrant » Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:28 am

We musn't paint a fresco in a single colour. Nothing is simple and we are eternal failures, that is existence, in hyper-order layer term.
unbound
User avatar
mental vagrant
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: A flick of green to be seen between alone between two giants

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby mental vagrant » Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:29 am

We should all kick our hooves and fly to venus for some chillax :P
unbound
User avatar
mental vagrant
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: A flick of green to be seen between alone between two giants

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:41 am

refer to beauty & vitality & life & the heart


that's your conclusion.
that GF lacks beauty, vitality, life, heart.
that's the Identity you have designated to GF.

looking thru any possible premises you may have to support that conclusion.
In other words your logic.

It looks like,
GF lacks those things,
because it fails to indulge in Sexual Fantasy.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Talking Ass » Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:43 pm

Everything I have seen so far, for example in 100% of The Thinking Man's Minefield, is in my view of an inferior order. When I speak of 'GF' I am referring principally to these doctrines, that emphasis.

It is true that I have concluded what I have concluded through the function of my 'logic'.

Most of what I say about sex is ironical. And yet, on other levels, not completely. In actual fact I see 'GF' as being terrified of The Body. Or if not 'terrified' then terribly disdainful of it. I tend to see their female-phobia as having a pathological undercurrent which is not seen as such. With this, my model for understanding (if you'll permit me) 'correct view and relationship' to women, is
best expressed in the Jewish tradition. I suggest that one of the primary 'errors' of view by Them is their view of 'Woman' (as they put it). I get the sense it arises from 1) unconscious psychological factors, and 2) a too direct immersion in Weininger, without parental sulervision...
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:41 pm

The logic of GF is this,

Woman, sex, politics, body, Jewish etc...
are 'things' of conventional reality.
they depend for their existence on causes/conditions.
they are not self-established.
As indeed you are not and I am not.

It's a conversation regarding ultimate reality.

Clear now?
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Talking Ass » Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:10 pm

This is important, then: I piss on your notion of 'absolute' reality. I completely dismiss the way you frame such a conversation and laugh at your logic. What you value and privelage, I barf on and kick into the gutter. AND, AND! I assert that honest people, honest and truthful people, and perhaps even your finest of referent 'sages' of ancient days, would need to do exactly the same. A powerful, honest personality would bring 'you' to a complete STOP.

A whole new and different modality needs to be established.

Murder your darlings, dear heart...
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:54 pm

I'm not talking about absolute reality.

I'm talking about conventional reality.
'things',
are not self-established.

People habitually react to things as if they were real in themselves.
I'm saying 'things' depend for their existence on causes/conditions.
that they may appear real but are not.

in that way their ultimate reality is an appearance.

Please read with comprehension.

Clear now?
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby mental vagrant » Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:39 pm

I don't think anyone has disagreed with respect to our impervious nature when speaking of absolution we only can identify our flaw. We cannot overcome it, hence rendering the conversation mute and it's factoids and doctrine ultimately irrelevant, other than to permit a sense of enquiry, an impetus for a curious mind. It,s the connotations accompanying the underlying premise that the doctrine is a life-style due to it's desecration of sanity by seeking the physically unfathomable.

Dennis it does sound like a partial retraction, i do assign truth to your statement's reflexivity in an introspective congruent manner, though i think you might have ditched some of it's elaborates others willed to defend.

No panoply will protect us from our unknowing. I continue to enjoy all of your input.
unbound
User avatar
mental vagrant
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: A flick of green to be seen between alone between two giants

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:59 pm

Did you make your body.
Did you make your brain.
Do you make your thoughts.
Do you make your feelings.
Do you cause what happens to you.
Do you beat your heart.
Do you breathe your lungs.

Let's make an inventory.
Did you make your atoms, molecules, proteins, amino acids, organs, eyes, nose, ears, hands.

Are not these some pieces/parts of you.
due to causes/conditions.

You lack inherent existence.
You do not exist from your own side.
You are not self-established.

What have you actually done.

If you existed from your own side.
Independant of causes/conditions.
If you were in control,
you would be 25 forever, more handsome, much richer and you wouldn't die.

You are an existential machine.
Some machines are aware of the situation.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby mental vagrant » Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:43 pm

Dennis Mahar wrote:Did you make your body.
Did you make your brain.
Do you make your thoughts.
Do you make your feelings.
Do you cause what happens to you.
Do you beat your heart.
Do you breathe your lungs.

Let's make an inventory.
Did you make your atoms, molecules, proteins, amino acids, organs, eyes, nose, ears, hands.

Are not these some pieces/parts of you.
due to causes/conditions.

You lack inherent existence.
You do not exist from your own side.
You are not self-established.

What have you actually done.

If you existed from your own side.
Independant of causes/conditions.
If you were in control,
you would be 25 forever, more handsome, much richer and you wouldn't die.

You are an existential machine.
Some machines are aware of the situation.


I agree with causations, as i can only do. I don't think that is being disputed, i think it's the thought systems encapsulating all perception and circumventing much information that we have differed on. Ultimately we speak of the nature of truth with different eye that renders foundation. Can we or can we not know, i think we can only know in terms of what we are, which is imo inseperable from truth regardless of imperfection.
unbound
User avatar
mental vagrant
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: A flick of green to be seen between alone between two giants

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Jamesh » Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:19 pm

There is no reason for content to be of any more importance than form. In fact it is not.
Content is one thing only (which is certainly not any absolute form of emptiness), while form is all things, all appearances.

Thus there is also no reason for inherency to be of any more import than
non-permanence - inherency is merely content and non-permanence is causation.

For life forms with some form of consciousness, entities that can observe, then that consciousness is completely real whenever it is active, and both simple awareness and thoughts only exist via the utilisation of forms. So seeing that for the entirety of our being we exist within the realm of form, which is non-permanent, why would the knowledge that only content (as in a formless totality, your emptiness) is inherent be of any ongoing importance to anyone's life.

It may or may not become important to an individual or to matters of truth that people acknowledge that things are not inherently self-caused, I'd certainly prefer everyone did, but it could be of no affect whatsoever unless the form itself had a power of its own, a centeredness with which to retain that knowledge in a kind of permanency relative to its lifetime. Permanency is a relative thing between the form of the self and what it observes or senses - if there is night and day everytime the entity is conscious then that is as good as being permanent.

Holding on to emptiness, as an enabler of selflessness, seems like the excuse the religious use, where one deludes themselves that there is something greater than them. How can anything be greater or of more importance than one's very own consciousness.

Just commenting, unlikely to respond.
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:13 am

Holding on to emptiness, as an enabler of selflessness, seems like the excuse the religious use, where one deludes themselves that there is something greater than them


Not only are you empty.
Empty is empty.
You have to have 'things' for empty to be there.
No 'things'. No empty.
Emptiness is form, form is emptiness.
Very subtle.
Take away form, take away empty,
you have Void.
the experience of Void.

I'm not denying existence.
Existence exists.
It's the nature of existence that's being targeted.

check out Dan's video.
try and 'hear' what he is saying.
being reactively overwhelmed by a melodious voice is a bit namby pamby.
'listen' to the argument.
Last edited by Dennis Mahar on Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Kunga » Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:17 am

There's too much hatred in his eyes to see (smell) anything but his own farts.
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2305
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:23 am

MV,
Ultimately we speak of the nature of truth


We're talking about the nature of existence.
Let truth take care of itself.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Talking Ass » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:44 am

Some may wonder why I bothered to stick it out here. I know, I know, it really might seem to be an indication of loonyness. I have asked myself that question, and indeed so has my (now pussy-possessing) nemisis, Dr Diebert. 'If you are so much in oppostion to the 'spirit' of this forum, why do you continue to [obsessively] post here?' he asked numerous times. I never really needed to answer that question, since I always felt I gained in the short-run (thought the long-term reasons were not all clear), and so I never really bothered for an answer. But just recently it has all begun to make sense. I think I understand now.

Genius Forum (and by this I means expressly the Documents of Lunacy that are contained in The Thinking Man's Minefield, etc.) is essentially a 'document' outlining a form of madness. It is a map of Wrong Turns, misunderstandings, insistances and assertions that arise from an Afflicted Ego, a wounded individual. It is not now nor will it likely ever be anything but a map of neurosis, and so NATURALLY the essential conversation and information-exchange that rises out of it, is always afflicted (thought there have been and are good moments). And it attracts people who have very obvious 'thinking disorders'.

Et bien, voilà: c'est simple. Once you have put it into language the matter becomes fairly simple.

I have come to understand the following: one must pay very close attention to EVERYTHING that the QRS discards! This is one of the keys and one of the incredible insights that have come to me (especially as I have had these interchanges with this utter moron, our own Beloved Dennis, the (self-assigned) Junior Deputy of GoFerism). One almost needs to create a list, a kind of 'catalog of antitheses', and really and carefully devote time to looking at it, considering all the items. But there are certainly a number of obvious ones: the feminine, the body, the local, the specific; one's existence as an affirmed VALUE as well as that of one's fellows; a revaluation of the present, of specific activity in the present; and very certainly of Art: our creative self, our imagination, and I would extend this back to mean, in essence, the Child.

Spending time in this place has enabled me to document a long process of coming to terms with this ego-madness: this affliction of the self that QRS call 'genius' and 'masculinity'. I don't like the term 'ego' and never use it, just as I never use the term 'enlightenment', but I think I can say, and accurately so, that what 'operates' here is a dangerously afflicted ego. Decadence, nihilism, befuddlement, benightedness, or simply 'a sickness of the soul'---however one catalogs it, here on finds it, swims in it, senses it, feels it, deals with it, conquers it. This 'poison for the heart' is therefore something that must be overcome in that Nietzschean sense. You have to overcome the effect of this 'poison' and you have to do this in your own soul, which is to say non-rationally, which is to say with more involvement and commitment than merely with the mind or the reason, not an easy feat. The men who are committed (addicted) to this style of reasoning, if nothing changes for them, will still be here in 10 years, in 20 years! posting exactly the same stuff! negating nearly every aspect of their 'human' self, bickering over nonsensical abstractions.

The core...(response might be the word)...to your insistance, Dennis, that I pay attention to these 'points' that seem so very important to you, to which you keep asking 'Get it?' 'Get it now?' 'Is it clear now?' is not that I don't follow your simple, dog-like 'reasoning', it is that I absolutely (pun intended) reject the entire frame of your presentation, the entire perspective that creates that frame in which you operate your ideas. The process that has led you to this definition of values (and the absurdity is that it IS a definition of values for all that you assert 'meaninglessness') is not one that I can participate in with you. It will never happen that I participate in it with you. This monocular that is to all intents and purposes stapled to your head that reduces your vision so astoundingly narrowly is not a monocular that I will ever put on. Nor should you ask another human being to put it on. Your 'ignorance' (another term not to my liking, but perhaps apt here) is so clear, so tangible, that I confess to being rather afraid of where it will take you.

So, what I do is lift the whole table on which this conversation is set. I turn it over with cheerful violence and smash it all to pieces. I reject the platform, the frame and the dope who cobbled it together.

The only response to you, dear Dennis, is contempt. (And with this I understand something crucial about Nietzsche and his 'hammer').
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Dennis Mahar » Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:03 am

So, what I do is lift the whole table on which this conversation is set. I turn it over with cheerful violence and smash it all to pieces. I reject the platform, the frame and the dope who cobbled it together.


Good for you!
Now we've got Void.

uh ho,

The only response to you, dear Dennis, is contempt. (And with this I understand something crucial about Nietzsche and his 'hammer')
.

now we've got meaning.
Bummer.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby Talking Ass » Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:29 am

Contempt...and irony. ;-)
fiat mihi
User avatar
Talking Ass
 
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Why causality is an illusion

Postby mental vagrant » Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:39 am

Dennis Mahar wrote:MV,
Ultimately we speak of the nature of truth


We're talking about the nature of existence.
Let truth take care of itself.



Yes. Are you saying you separate one from the other? If so there doesn't seem to be an as large disagreement. A doctrine it shouldn't be though, i can't help but think that this debate 'exists' ( :) ) because we all have a slightly different way of expressing our thought. We might be speaking of the same things in essence but our interpretation of language misguides us? Should we boil our pot and analyse the chemical remains?
unbound
User avatar
mental vagrant
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: A flick of green to be seen between alone between two giants

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests