|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 26, 2013 22:45:14 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. LOL.. nope, E's replies are their own justice, he keeps revealing how little he actually believes his own illusions.. No, I don't. You're just imagining that. No, it's not. You just want a sparring partner. You make such an encounter impossible. Sorry, E.. You are just dodging an open honest discussion, making whatever excuses you think will create the illusions you need to escape clarity.. how long will you keep deceiving yourself? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 26, 2013 22:48:55 GMT -5
Greetings..
Let's be clear.. you can't, the many offers stand, and you only make excuses..
Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2013 22:55:45 GMT -5
wow, ok, this latest entry ... just was hard to find a logical cut-off. well, anyway, I know that it's a big snoozer for most 'round here but I just couldn't resist: Q: Is the Universe a product of the senses?
...
Q: The sciences have made much progress. We know the body and the mind much better than our ancestors did. Your traditional way, describing and analyzing mind and matter, is no longer valid.
Niz: But where are your scientists with their sciences? Are they not again images in your own mind?
Q: Here lies the basic difference! To me they are not my own projections. They were before I was born and shall be there when I am dead.
Niz: Of course. Once you accept time and space as real, you will consider yourself minute and short-lived. But are they real? Do they depend on you or you on them? The society that I grew up in and see all around me is dominated by a materialistic worldview formed by skepticism ... the sweep of history demonstrates that skepticism, through the vehicle of the scientific method, is very effective as the basis of a process of forming beliefs that are resistant to skepticism. This worldview is what produces a misconception, as stated by the questioner, that is actually an act of self-deception by the rational, reasoning mind. The fact is that science got to the point early last century where it demonstrated the failure of objectivity. Niz: Once you accept time and space as real, you will consider yourself minute and short-lived. But are they real? Do they depend on you or you on them? IOW: What Niz implies here is right, and although most people who operate based on assumptions that are in turn the product of second-hand knowledge passed down to them from the high priesthood of the sciences are unaware of this, time and space, and all matter are entirely subjective -- and the source of that assertion are those high-priest scientists themselves! This isn't the only example of "spiritualists" arriving at a conclusion via intuition that scientists arrive at via trial-and-error , and not entirely because of a common cultural assumption (monism) -- but the failure of the entire basis of the material monistic structure under the relentless assault of rationalism, namely: objectivity, is just so delicious an irony that the contemplation of it never fails to evoke a good laugh. It's the second ultimate practical joke, the first of course being the ineffability of THIS. The two are obviously related. That said though, the bulk of what the vast majority of "spiritualists" have to say still strikes me as just a bunch of derivative wacko delusion. (just sayin! ). So what to do with the paradox of science discovering there is no basis for objective discovery? Now that's something that should, by all rights, collapse under it's own weight and never get published. ;D
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 26, 2013 22:58:10 GMT -5
Greetings.. wow, ok, this latest entry ... just was hard to find a logical cut-off. well, anyway, I know that it's a big snoozer for most 'round here but I just couldn't resist: The society that I grew up in and see all around me is dominated by a materialistic worldview formed by skepticism ... the sweep of history demonstrates that skepticism, through the vehicle of the scientific method, is very effective as the basis of a process of forming beliefs that are resistant to skepticism. This worldview is what produces a misconception, as stated by the questioner, that is actually an act of self-deception by the rational, reasoning mind. The fact is that science got to the point early last century where it demonstrated the failure of objectivity. IOW: What Niz implies here is right, and although most people who operate based on assumptions that are in turn the product of second-hand knowledge passed down to them from the high priesthood of the sciences are unaware of this, time and space, and all matter are entirely subjective -- and the source of that assertion are those high-priest scientists themselves! This isn't the only example of "spiritualists" arriving at a conclusion via intuition that scientists arrive at via trial-and-error , and not entirely because of a common cultural assumption (monism) -- but the failure of the entire basis of the material monistic structure under the relentless assault of rationalism, namely: objectivity, is just so delicious an irony that the contemplation of it never fails to evoke a good laugh. It's the second ultimate practical joke, the first of course being the ineffability of THIS. The two are obviously related. That said though, the bulk of what the vast majority of "spiritualists" have to say still strikes me as just a bunch of derivative wacko delusion. (just sayin! ). Hi Laughter: Second-hand knowledge is second-hand knowledge, your priest is Niz, others' is AE, and, i'm not interested in priests.. i'm interested in clarity, though.. and, it strikes me odd that you are critical of scientist-priests who strive to reduce ambiguity, and fond of mind-priests who tell people to imagine they aren't real, all while you operate in time-space while explaining that time-space is 'subjective' (it's relative, actually).. by the way, how's that not real time-space thingy working-out for Niz (April 17, 1897 – September 8, 1981).. i see neither priest-perspectives as wholly accurate, though.. it's all way more simple than the 'minding' that is being passed-off as 'true'.. And, for the record, i understand time and space as actual and existent, and i definitely do not consider myself as minute or short lived.. Niz missed that understanding completely, his beliefs about time and space were unrelated to people's awareness, they were just his isolated separate neuroses about his existence.. Be well.. Dear Mr. Tzu', it strikes me odd that you are critical of scientist-priests who strive to reduce ambiguity What, exactly, did you find about what I wrote to be critical of scientists? That I referred to them as "high-priests?" ... look again, there is no criticism there, just a wry comment on perspective of the questioner in the quoted segment. Are you prepared to word-lawyer this fine distinction between "relative" and "subjective". ;D The fact is that two people moving relative to one another will measure a ruler differently. The primary measure of space, length, is subjective. Even mind can see this. If you are going to think Tzu', think it all the way through, don't stop in the 19th century. And you here you didn't touch the idea of the subjectivity of matter with a 10 foot pole (lmao). And, for the record, i understand time and space as actual and existent "Actual" and "existant" are not incompatible with "subjective" ... you seemed to have your warrior's reaction to my pronouncing the death of "objectivity" ... interesting. -- with gratitude for the laugh
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 26, 2013 23:01:24 GMT -5
So what to do with the paradox of science discovering there is no basis for objective discovery? Now that's something that should, by all rights, collapse under it's own weight and never get published. ;D Well they had to stay in business and fine business it is! ... it's just that every experiment they run at CERN has this "quantum observer" hitching along for an uninvited and unwelcome ride. What I've perceived is a sort of absorption into the culture by way of nihilistic existentialism by minds that have understood the intellectual implications but never investigated beyond that .... two words: moral relativism.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2013 23:02:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. wow, ok, this latest entry ... just was hard to find a logical cut-off. well, anyway, I know that it's a big snoozer for most 'round here but I just couldn't resist: The society that I grew up in and see all around me is dominated by a materialistic worldview formed by skepticism ... the sweep of history demonstrates that skepticism, through the vehicle of the scientific method, is very effective as the basis of a process of forming beliefs that are resistant to skepticism. This worldview is what produces a misconception, as stated by the questioner, that is actually an act of self-deception by the rational, reasoning mind. The fact is that science got to the point early last century where it demonstrated the failure of objectivity. IOW: What Niz implies here is right, and although most people who operate based on assumptions that are in turn the product of second-hand knowledge passed down to them from the high priesthood of the sciences are unaware of this, time and space, and all matter are entirely subjective -- and the source of that assertion are those high-priest scientists themselves! This isn't the only example of "spiritualists" arriving at a conclusion via intuition that scientists arrive at via trial-and-error , and not entirely because of a common cultural assumption (monism) -- but the failure of the entire basis of the material monistic structure under the relentless assault of rationalism, namely: objectivity, is just so delicious an irony that the contemplation of it never fails to evoke a good laugh. It's the second ultimate practical joke, the first of course being the ineffability of THIS. The two are obviously related. That said though, the bulk of what the vast majority of "spiritualists" have to say still strikes me as just a bunch of derivative wacko delusion. (just sayin! ). Hi Laughter: Second-hand knowledge is second-hand knowledge, your priest is Niz, others' is AE, and, i'm not interested in priests.. i'm interested in clarity, though.. and, it strikes me odd that you are critical of scientist-priests who strive to reduce ambiguity, and fond of mind-priests who tell people to imagine they aren't real, all while you operate in time-space while explaining that time-space is 'subjective' (it's relative, actually).. by the way, how's that not real time-space thingy working-out for Niz (April 17, 1897 – September 8, 1981).. i see neither priest-perspectives as wholly accurate, though.. it's all way more simple than the 'minding' that is being passed-off as 'true'.. And, for the record, i understand time and space as actual and existent, and i definitely do not consider myself as minute or short lived.. Niz missed that understanding completely, his beliefs about time and space were unrelated to people's awareness, they were just his isolated separate neuroses about his existence.. Be well.. Poor neurotic Niz. ;D
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2013 23:05:02 GMT -5
Greetings.. Let's be clear.. you can't, the many offers stand, and you only make excuses.. Be well.. I tried playing in your sandbox and there was no indication at all that you heard anything I said. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2013 23:11:32 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hi Laughter: Second-hand knowledge is second-hand knowledge, your priest is Niz, others' is AE, and, i'm not interested in priests.. i'm interested in clarity, though.. and, it strikes me odd that you are critical of scientist-priests who strive to reduce ambiguity, and fond of mind-priests who tell people to imagine they aren't real, all while you operate in time-space while explaining that time-space is 'subjective' (it's relative, actually).. by the way, how's that not real time-space thingy working-out for Niz (April 17, 1897 – September 8, 1981).. i see neither priest-perspectives as wholly accurate, though.. it's all way more simple than the 'minding' that is being passed-off as 'true'.. And, for the record, i understand time and space as actual and existent, and i definitely do not consider myself as minute or short lived.. Niz missed that understanding completely, his beliefs about time and space were unrelated to people's awareness, they were just his isolated separate neuroses about his existence.. Be well.. Dear Mr. Tzu', What, exactly, did you find about what I wrote to be critical of scientists? That I referred to them as "high-priests?" ... look again, there is no criticism there, just a wry comment on perspective of the questioner in the quoted segment. As usual, he didn't actually read the words you wrote, just the words in his head. It's the same problem I'm having in communicating with him.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 26, 2013 23:19:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hi Laughter: Second-hand knowledge is second-hand knowledge, your priest is Niz, others' is AE, and, i'm not interested in priests.. i'm interested in clarity, though.. and, it strikes me odd that you are critical of scientist-priests who strive to reduce ambiguity, and fond of mind-priests who tell people to imagine they aren't real, all while you operate in time-space while explaining that time-space is 'subjective' (it's relative, actually).. by the way, how's that not real time-space thingy working-out for Niz (April 17, 1897 – September 8, 1981).. i see neither priest-perspectives as wholly accurate, though.. it's all way more simple than the 'minding' that is being passed-off as 'true'.. And, for the record, i understand time and space as actual and existent, and i definitely do not consider myself as minute or short lived.. Niz missed that understanding completely, his beliefs about time and space were unrelated to people's awareness, they were just his isolated separate neuroses about his existence.. Be well.. Poor neurotic Niz. ;DWait! .... I just went and watched my first Niz video: Tzu' is right ... this guy don't got no teeth, can't speak English and squints and yells all the time! Silly me! I was just going by his WORDS!Wow, thanks Tzu'! You really saved me a whole bunch of time!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2013 23:24:24 GMT -5
So what to do with the paradox of science discovering there is no basis for objective discovery? Now that's something that should, by all rights, collapse under it's own weight and never get published. ;D Well they had to stay in business and fine business it is! ... it's just that every experiment they run at CERN has this "quantum observer" hitching along for an uninvited and unwelcome ride. What I've perceived is a sort of absorption into the culture by way of nihilistic existentialism by minds that have understood the intellectual implications but never investigated beyond that .... two words: moral relativism. What I see, beyond a natural reluctance to collapse the floor they stand on, is that science is giving us a marker as a reflection for the evolution of human consciousness. The moving together of science, spirituality, and perhaps even philosophy and theology, toward a single point of absolute subjectivity in which all discipline walls are broken down, is quite auspicious. Science is a creative expression rather than a process of discovery, and so that theoretical convergence would seem to mark the awakening of human consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 26, 2013 23:29:28 GMT -5
Wait! .... I just went and watched my first Niz video: Tzu' is right ... this guy don't got no teeth, can't speak English and squints and yells all the time! Silly me! I was just going by his WORDS!Wow, thanks Tzu'! You really saved me a whole bunch of time! Yeah, obviously a looney tune. Who would listen to him? ;D
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 26, 2013 23:33:09 GMT -5
Well they had to stay in business and fine business it is! ... it's just that every experiment they run at CERN has this "quantum observer" hitching along for an uninvited and unwelcome ride. What I've perceived is a sort of absorption into the culture by way of nihilistic existentialism by minds that have understood the intellectual implications but never investigated beyond that .... two words: moral relativism. What I see, beyond a natural reluctance to collapse the floor they stand on, is that science is giving us a marker as a reflection for the evolution of human consciousness. The moving together of science, spirituality, and perhaps even philosophy and theology, toward a single point of absolute subjectivity in which all discipline walls are broken down, is quite auspicious. Science is a creative expression rather than a process of discovery, and so that theoretical convergence would seem to mark the awakening of human consciousness. Nice. I've searched for those words and even found them, though NOT all in one paragraph. 8-)hehe
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 26, 2013 23:37:02 GMT -5
Well they had to stay in business and fine business it is! ... it's just that every experiment they run at CERN has this "quantum observer" hitching along for an uninvited and unwelcome ride. What I've perceived is a sort of absorption into the culture by way of nihilistic existentialism by minds that have understood the intellectual implications but never investigated beyond that .... two words: moral relativism. What I see, beyond a natural reluctance to collapse the floor they stand on, is that science is giving us a marker as a reflection for the evolution of human consciousness. The moving together of science, spirituality, and perhaps even philosophy and theology, toward a single point of absolute subjectivity in which all discipline walls are broken down, is quite auspicious. Science is a creative expression rather than a process of discovery, and so that theoretical convergence would seem to mark the awakening of human consciousness. A hopeful and soulful vision Mr. Enigma. I dunno .... are Mr. Temp and the figless one starting to rub off on you?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 27, 2013 1:25:38 GMT -5
What I see, beyond a natural reluctance to collapse the floor they stand on, is that science is giving us a marker as a reflection for the evolution of human consciousness. The moving together of science, spirituality, and perhaps even philosophy and theology, toward a single point of absolute subjectivity in which all discipline walls are broken down, is quite auspicious. Science is a creative expression rather than a process of discovery, and so that theoretical convergence would seem to mark the awakening of human consciousness. A hopeful and soulful vision Mr. Enigma. I dunno .... are Mr. Temp and the figless one starting to rub off on you? ;D Well, I can't say I see all the wondrous evidence of human awakening that others seems to see. Perhaps the closest I can come is that I see a lot of feet burning and a sense that it needs to get a bit hotter. That could, of course, go on for centuries, but science flows swiftly to it's self annihilation. Hehe. Saw that about a decade ago, so I can't give Figandrew credit for that particular influence.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 27, 2013 6:18:55 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Hi Laughter: Second-hand knowledge is second-hand knowledge, your priest is Niz, others' is AE, and, i'm not interested in priests.. i'm interested in clarity, though.. and, it strikes me odd that you are critical of scientist-priests who strive to reduce ambiguity, and fond of mind-priests who tell people to imagine they aren't real, all while you operate in time-space while explaining that time-space is 'subjective' (it's relative, actually).. by the way, how's that not real time-space thingy working-out for Niz (April 17, 1897 – September 8, 1981).. i see neither priest-perspectives as wholly accurate, though.. it's all way more simple than the 'minding' that is being passed-off as 'true'.. And, for the record, i understand time and space as actual and existent, and i definitely do not consider myself as minute or short lived.. Niz missed that understanding completely, his beliefs about time and space were unrelated to people's awareness, they were just his isolated separate neuroses about his existence.. Be well.. Dear Mr. Tzu', What, exactly, did you find about what I wrote to be critical of scientists? That I referred to them as "high-priests?" ... look again, there is no criticism there, just a wry comment on perspective of the questioner in the quoted segment. Are you prepared to word-lawyer this fine distinction between "relative" and "subjective". ;D The fact is that two people moving relative to one another will measure a ruler differently. The primary measure of space, length, is subjective. Even mind can see this. If you are going to think Tzu', think it all the way through, don't stop in the 19th century. And you here you didn't touch the idea of the subjectivity of matter with a 10 foot pole (lmao). And, for the record, i understand time and space as actual and existent "Actual" and "existant" are not incompatible with "subjective" ... you seemed to have your warrior's reaction to my pronouncing the death of "objectivity" ... interesting. -- with gratitude for the laugh You weren't paying attention, Laughter.. you're finding your expectations and attachments.. Be well..
|
|