|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 10:24:15 GMT -5
So mind is outside of mind and it knows it? Is that like the mind knowing the mind knowing the mind...? I believe it's too much thinking we have...not too much knowing.. Do you know the difference? I mean between knowing and thinking. Again, you know too much, and oddly, are trying to know even more. I have no idea what you know about some kind of difference between knowing and thinking, but whatever it is, it's too much knowing and thinking. I would say it's too much believing in the validity of that knowledge, and realizing this is a much more effective way out of the dilemma of knowing too much than trying to not know what one knows.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 10:28:43 GMT -5
Again, you know too much, and oddly, are trying to know even more. I have no idea what you know about some kind of difference between knowing and thinking, but whatever it is, it's too much knowing and thinking. And you esteban? clearly know how to write the same sentence over and over again. And so I ask again, how many times do you have to say that there is too much knowing, before it is never mentioned again?638 times....give or take a couple.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 10:37:23 GMT -5
If Being is limitless, it clearly crosses the boundary of whatever you define mind to be. Not if it includes mind within the boundary. Does the border of the United States cross the boundary of Nebraska? Then would 'all' be contained in Nebraska or in the United States? I believe you do care at some level, since your thread is a perfect exploration of misconceived questions.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 10:41:44 GMT -5
'ALL' is separated conceptually into Being and mind by imagining distinctions, and then one asks if 'all' (whatever we imagine that to be) falls into one imaginary category or another. There cannot be a 'real' answer to a question based on imaginary distinctions. It's not fundamentally different from asking about the mating habits of the unicorn or the dietary habits of the Germidgepillion. (Though A is still waiting for further data on the latter) Experience consists of distinctions. This is why Niz says everything is a play of ideas. When we form distinctions about our experience, like mind and Being, we're just creating more distinctions about distinctions to add to our experience. When we ask questions about the ultimate truth of those imaginary distinctions, then it becomes clear that we have forgotten that we imagined them in the first place. Is there a mind in actuality or is it a way of talking about the appearance of thought as opposed to the appearance of feeling or sense perceptions? Is there a Being in actuality or is it a way of talking about subjectivity as opposed to objectivity, which is another distinction? (Exceeding 3 paragraph text wall limit) Creating distinctions can be fun and interesting and very practical as we manipulate our experience, but outside of that context they have no meaning and don't refer to some objective 'reality' or actuality or truth. They mean only what we have imagined they mean. You can always vote 'this poll is for the birds'. ***rolls eyes*** ('cause I don't know which is the rollie-eyes smiley ) You didn't understand what Quinn was saying after all.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 1, 2013 10:42:04 GMT -5
Not if it includes mind within the boundary. Does the border of the United States cross the boundary of Nebraska? Then would 'all' be contained in Nebraska or in the United States? That depends on if you think Nebraska is the U.S., and the U.S. Nebraska. If I cared, then why am I started a thread for misconceived questions? C'mon, E. Get the stick out of your a$$. I'm just wondering what the folks here think. If you've got a problem with that, you don't have to participate.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 1, 2013 10:43:07 GMT -5
You can always vote 'this poll is for the birds'. ***rolls eyes*** ('cause I don't know which is the rollie-eyes smiley ) You didn't understand what Quinn was saying after all. **Contains conclusions**
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 10:47:28 GMT -5
Can I borrow this for a moment?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 1, 2013 10:49:48 GMT -5
Can I borrow this for a moment? Borrow? You have outright have it, free of charge. Words are free.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 10:50:49 GMT -5
Can I borrow this for a moment? Borrow? You have outright have it, free of charge. Words are free. Thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 11:42:43 GMT -5
What was the misconceived question? 'ALL' is separated conceptually into Being and mind by imagining distinctions, and then one asks if 'all' (whatever we imagine that to be) falls into one imaginary category or another. There cannot be a 'real' answer to a question based on imaginary distinctions. It's not fundamentally different from asking about the mating habits of the unicorn or the dietary habits of the Germidgepillion. (Though A is still waiting for further data on the latter) Experience consists of distinctions. This is why Niz says everything is a play of ideas. When we form distinctions about our experience, like mind and Being, we're just creating more distinctions about distinctions to add to our experience. When we ask questions about the ultimate truth of those imaginary distinctions, then it becomes clear that we have forgotten that we imagined them in the first place. Is there a mind in actuality or is it a way of talking about the appearance of thought as opposed to the appearance of feeling or sense perceptions? Is there a Being in actuality or is it a way of talking about subjectivity as opposed to objectivity, which is another distinction? (Exceeding 3 paragraph text wall limit) Creating distinctions can be fun and interesting and very practical as we manipulate our experience, but outside of that context they have no meaning and don't refer to some objective 'reality' or actuality or truth. They mean only what we have imagined they mean. So is 'All' the same as 'Love is 'All' encompassing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 12:50:22 GMT -5
What was the misconceived question? Creating distinctions can be fun and interesting and very practical as we manipulate our experience, but outside of that context they have no meaning and don't refer to some objective 'reality' or actuality or truth. They mean only what we have imagined they mean.True, true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 12:51:45 GMT -5
And you esteban? clearly know how to write the same sentence over and over again. And so I ask again, how many times do you have to say that there is too much knowing, before it is never mentioned again? 638 times....give or take a couple. 529 is my guess
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jul 1, 2013 16:28:02 GMT -5
However, the real problem here seems to be that.....the question is misconceived.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 1, 2013 17:06:10 GMT -5
So far the birds have it.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 1, 2013 20:01:01 GMT -5
So far the birds have it. Yes, I'd say they have a plurality, but not a majority. "Not birds" outnumber them by 1.
|
|