Jamesh wrote:I've not seen anything that can’t be looked at from two equally valid and complimentary opposing perspectives.
Did you mean to express this so adamantly? What is the perspective that makes a square circle possible, for example?
Jamesh wrote:I've not seen anything that can’t be looked at from two equally valid and complimentary opposing perspectives.
Bob Michael wrote:Krishnamurti said the greatest of all gifts is "impersonal love". Meaning having true and abiding love for all human beings.
Bob Michael wrote:My view is that Krishnamurti's message or teaching was 'not geared' to reach people's hearts or to the very depths of their being. And especially as the years went on.
But rest assured, L S, he did not live entirely in vain. He passed the 'torch' on to me in Ojai back in '85 and I am carrying it forward.
Dan Rowden wrote:
Um, no, sorry.
Kunga wrote:You saw a circle turn into a square right ?
jupiviv wrote:Kunga wrote:You saw a circle turn into a square right ?
If the circle is turning into a square then it isn't the square is it? This is basic logic.
I know it's impossible for a square circle to exist.....but I was playing with the possibilites one could come up with if looking at it from another perspective would make more sense.
Again, if the circle is within the square, or vice versa, then the two objects aren't the same object. Of course, you can call a combination of one/many squares and circles a "square circle", but that object would be neither a square nor a circle. However you look at it, you can't have an object that is both a square and a circle, if you define "square" and "circle" to be different things.
Similarly with opposing perspectives - if two perspectives oppose each other then either one of them is wrong, or both of them are wrong and a third perspective is right. You can't understand the differences in perspectives while rejecting the duality of right and wrong.
Dan Rowden wrote:A square circle is a two dimensional object that simultaneously meets the definitions of "square" and "circle". i.e., an impossibility.
Kunga wrote:I'm thinking outside the box....comming up with creative solutions to the problem
Dan Rowden wrote:A square circle is a two dimensional object that simultaneously meets the definitions of "square" and "circle". i.e., an impossibility.
jupiviv wrote:Kunga wrote:I'm thinking outside the box....comming up with creative solutions to the problem
There is no problem. A square and a circle are different things, so it is meaningless to try to find a way of saying that they are the same thing.
Also, I disapprove of you responding to me in pink, not to mention changing part of my own post to pink. Stop this immediately!
Dan Rowden wrote:A square circle is a two dimensional object that simultaneously meets the definitions of "square" and "circle". i.e., an impossibility.
cousinbasil wrote:To think that any perspective - or any amount of genius or insight - can make a square circle a possibility is delusional if not borderline insane.
Kunga wrote:cousinbasil wrote:To think that any perspective - or any amount of genius or insight - can make a square circle a possibility is delusional if not borderline insane.
I agree...but it has been stimulating my brain and teaching me a lesson in logic. I was just having fun with this
playing the devils advocate....but there is still a part of me that is open to an unknown logic. Something beyond
our human comprehension.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PUfsT-5KT6w/T ... circle.jpg
cousinbasil wrote: ...unknown logic of any kind will not contradict known logic. It may extend it into unexpected realms - history is rife with examples of this kind. But there would be no point in accepting such new logic in any fashion if it contradicted known logic, since then such logic would then also have to be suspect.