Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 9:43:10 GMT -5
I don't know what that is and I'm too proud to look it up. How about you stop trying to be the smartáss or funny guy or whatever and get back on topic? Calling existence a mistake seems like a mistake. It is what it is. Yes there's misery. Yes there's lots of non-misery too. You just said you enjoy some of it. You have to presume something better before you can say it's all a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 6, 2013 10:04:49 GMT -5
I don't know what that is and I'm too proud to look it up. How about you stop trying to be the smartáss or funny guy or whatever and get back on topic? Calling existence a mistake seems like a mistake. It is what it is. Yes there's misery. Yes there's lots of non-misery too. You just said you enjoy some of it. You have to presume something better before you can say it's all a mistake. Just because it is what it is doesn't mean that it's perfect. In fact it isn't perfect, because I can easily imagine a better existence. This means that this existence is imperfect and therefore a mistake. It is not a mistake to call existence a mistake if existence is in fact a mistake. I have logically proven that existence is a mistake. Just because we can't or don't know yet how to fix a mistake doesn't mean that we shouldn't be allowed to call the mistake a mistake. Your reply to all this is to just stop calling it a mistake and to stop using the brain at all. That's the same old anti-intellectual bs. That's what the masters used to tell their slaves, "reality is how it is, so accept it and be happy". I can understand when the master is doing that, but when the slaves tell that to each other is when all their dignity is lost and they become things. My logic is impeccable as always. Take an hour off and think about my argument deeply and don't waste my time with another moronic reply. Idiot.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 6, 2013 10:26:49 GMT -5
Oh okay. Because it doesn't match up with what you imagine it is a mistake. Putting existence in the category of 'mistake' is something I'm calling an activity of imagination. I'm not disputing existence. When I eat a sweet potato kale burrito, I say yum. When I wake up in the middle of the night with inflamed athletes foot I say darn. Where's the mistake? It's fair to say that all suffering does exist and that there are terrible things in the world. I guess we all do our share and everyone has the capacity to cause harm to others. This reminds me of David Hume's Is and Ought... like I can imagine how it ought to be, as opposed to how it is. Things are never easy because there are no overall rules, for example, there is some contentment in accepting it as it is, but complacency about injustice? There's an ethical dilemma in 'allowing' injustices, so we protect children from vile predators... or at least we 'ought' to... and that would imply that both action and non-action would be mistakes depending on circumstances. It's not always easy to determine an appropriate response or make the right decisions. Sometimes we just don't know what to do... it's inevitable then that some things we decide or do will be regrettable in hindsight, and we call that a mistake, so everyone makes mistakes. The truth applies because there's such a thing as an honest mistake... like we can hurt others without ever intending to, it's unfortunate, but it's an honest mistake. Other times we might just react really badly, and through anger, lash out and say hurtful things or become violent and begin a cycle of anger and guilt. A violent person can be truly sorry, but that doesn't mean they won't do it again, when temper gets out of control it is so harmful, and unstoppable. I know people have their psychological theories about this kind of thing, but we find that the theory is very difficult to apply in practice, and there is quite a large difference between the ideal and the real... yep, is and ought. From JB's comment on this, I can't tell if he likes it or not, but I do. I think its very good, well said. I also tend to think JB's saying this existence is a mistake is accurate enough because I think whatever/whomever 'created' this mess needs to toss it and go back to the freakin' drawing board or just forgetaboutit. But, I'd never make it without my sense of humor and the absurd, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 6, 2013 10:35:42 GMT -5
From JB's comment on this, I can't tell if he likes it or not, but I do. I think its very good, well said. I think it's just commonplace fortune-cookie wisdom and could have been written by some guy like Deepak who in love with the sound of his own voice.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 6, 2013 10:41:20 GMT -5
From JB's comment on this, I can't tell if he likes it or not, but I do. I think its very good, well said. I think it's just commonplace fortune-cookie wisdom and could have been written by some guy like Deepak who in love with the sound of his own voice. I realize it could be categorized as 'commonplace', but in the chaos that regularly surrounds most of us, we forget that commonplace wisdom -- and we need that wisdom and to be reminded. I guess that's why some people go to church, they feel that they need to be reminded of some of this, even if some of the preaching is out in left field. For me, there's a draw to what lolly said, but I haven't been to church in eons and don't plan on going any time soon, either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 10:42:27 GMT -5
Calling existence a mistake seems like a mistake. It is what it is. Yes there's misery. Yes there's lots of non-misery too. You just said you enjoy some of it. You have to presume something better before you can say it's all a mistake. Just because it is what it is doesn't mean that it's perfect. In fact it isn't perfect, because I can easily imagine a better existence. This means that this existence is imperfect and therefore a mistake. It is not a mistake to call existence a mistake if existence is in fact a mistake. I have logically proven that existence is a mistake. Just because we can't or don't know yet how to fix a mistake doesn't mean that we shouldn't be allowed to call the mistake a mistake. Your reply to all this is to just stop calling it a mistake and to stop using the brain at all. That's the same old anti-intellectual bs. That's what the masters used to tell their slaves, "reality is how it is, so accept it and be happy". I can understand when the master is doing that, but when the slaves tell that to each other is when all their dignity is lost and they become things. My logic is impeccable as always. Take an hour off and think about my argument deeply and don't waste my time with another moronic reply. Idiot. You have an impeccable fantasy about your impeccable logic blah blah blah. Perfect is not something I've ever uttered when describing existence. In fact I've spent a fair amount of board space disparaging it's use. Mistake and perfect are cut of the same cloth, it seems to me. Oops maybe I didn't wait a full hour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 10:49:50 GMT -5
Oh okay. Because it doesn't match up with what you imagine it is a mistake. Putting existence in the category of 'mistake' is something I'm calling an activity of imagination. I'm not disputing existence. When I eat a sweet potato kale burrito, I say yum. When I wake up in the middle of the night with inflamed athletes foot I say darn. Where's the mistake? It's fair to say that all suffering does exist and that there are terrible things in the world. I guess we all do our share and everyone has the capacity to cause harm to others. This reminds me of David Hume's Is and Ought... like I can imagine how it ought to be, as opposed to how it is. Things are never easy because there are no overall rules, for example, there is some contentment in accepting it as it is, but complacency about injustice? There's an ethical dilemma in 'allowing' injustices, so we protect children from vile predators... or at least we 'ought' to... and that would imply that both action and non-action would be mistakes depending on circumstances. It's not always easy to determine an appropriate response or make the right decisions. Sometimes we just don't know what to do... it's inevitable then that some things we decide or do will be regrettable in hindsight, and we call that a mistake, so everyone makes mistakes. The truth applies because there's such a thing as an honest mistake... like we can hurt others without ever intending to, it's unfortunate, but it's an honest mistake. Other times we might just react really badly, and through anger, lash out and say hurtful things or become violent and begin a cycle of anger and guilt. A violent person can be truly sorry, but that doesn't mean they won't do it again, when temper gets out of control it is so harmful, and unstoppable. I know people have their psychological theories about this kind of thing, but we find that the theory is very difficult to apply in practice, and there is quite a large difference between the ideal and the real... yep, is and ought. Yes but that's all in the realm of human behavior. Would you call existence a mistake? And just because it might not be a mistake doesn't mean it is therefore all part of a big pattern or perfect or anything. It can not be known. And this may be uncomfortable.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 6, 2013 10:57:44 GMT -5
You have an impeccable fantasy about your impeccable logic blah blah blah. (translation: you're an idiot) Perfect is not something I've ever uttered when describing existence. In fact I've spent a fair amount of board space disparaging it's use. (I do shít like so and so) Mistake and perfect are cut of the same cloth, it seems to me. (opposites are the same imo) Oops maybe I didn't wait a full hour. (I'm fanny, lol)*yawn*
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 6, 2013 11:00:35 GMT -5
I realize it could be categorized as 'commonplace', but in the chaos that regularly surrounds most of us, we forget that commonplace wisdom -- and we need that wisdom and to be reminded. I guess that's why some people go to church, they feel that they need to be reminded of some of this, even if some of the preaching is out in left field. For me, there's a draw to what lolly said, but I haven't been to church in eons and don't plan on going any time soon, either. I'm saying his was just feel-good speak bar any substance. Not good, not bad, just empty blah blah.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 6, 2013 11:26:07 GMT -5
I realize it could be categorized as 'commonplace', but in the chaos that regularly surrounds most of us, we forget that commonplace wisdom -- and we need that wisdom and to be reminded. I guess that's why some people go to church, they feel that they need to be reminded of some of this, even if some of the preaching is out in left field. For me, there's a draw to what lolly said, but I haven't been to church in eons and don't plan on going any time soon, either. I'm saying his was just feel-good speak bar any substance. Not good, not bad, just empty blah blah. I'm saying that this stuff you call commonplace or even empty (?!) is essential to the heart of humanity, and it's something that is being sidelined by a myriad of distractions of everyday life, and I say it leads to making the quality of life take a nosedive when we forget to remember. You've invited yourself to tune it out to your own detriment.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 7, 2013 0:06:26 GMT -5
Calling existence a mistake seems like a mistake. It is what it is. Yes there's misery. Yes there's lots of non-misery too. You just said you enjoy some of it. You have to presume something better before you can say it's all a mistake. Just because it is what it is doesn't mean that it's perfect. In fact it isn't perfect, because I can easily imagine a better existence. This means that this existence is imperfect and therefore a mistake. It is not a mistake to call existence a mistake if existence is in fact a mistake. I have logically proven that existence is a mistake. Just because we can't or don't know yet how to fix a mistake doesn't mean that we shouldn't be allowed to call the mistake a mistake. Your reply to all this is to just stop calling it a mistake and to stop using the brain at all. That's the same old anti-intellectual bs. That's what the masters used to tell their slaves, "reality is how it is, so accept it and be happy". I can understand when the master is doing that, but when the slaves tell that to each other is when all their dignity is lost and they become things. My logic is impeccable as always. Take an hour off and think about my argument deeply and don't waste my time with another moronic reply. Idiot.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 7, 2013 3:34:55 GMT -5
It's fair to say that all suffering does exist and that there are terrible things in the world. I guess we all do our share and everyone has the capacity to cause harm to others. This reminds me of David Hume's Is and Ought... like I can imagine how it ought to be, as opposed to how it is. Things are never easy because there are no overall rules, for example, there is some contentment in accepting it as it is, but complacency about injustice? There's an ethical dilemma in 'allowing' injustices, so we protect children from vile predators... or at least we 'ought' to... and that would imply that both action and non-action would be mistakes depending on circumstances. It's not always easy to determine an appropriate response or make the right decisions. Sometimes we just don't know what to do... it's inevitable then that some things we decide or do will be regrettable in hindsight, and we call that a mistake, so everyone makes mistakes. The truth applies because there's such a thing as an honest mistake... like we can hurt others without ever intending to, it's unfortunate, but it's an honest mistake. Other times we might just react really badly, and through anger, lash out and say hurtful things or become violent and begin a cycle of anger and guilt. A violent person can be truly sorry, but that doesn't mean they won't do it again, when temper gets out of control it is so harmful, and unstoppable. I know people have their psychological theories about this kind of thing, but we find that the theory is very difficult to apply in practice, and there is quite a large difference between the ideal and the real... yep, is and ought. I like your short posts much better, when you condense the message to a (maybe provocative) one-liner. Your longer posts though are pretty much commonplace drivel, many words that don't say anything of substance. OK, short posts. When I respond to you in future I'll only say a couple of sentences.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 7, 2013 4:40:18 GMT -5
It's fair to say that all suffering does exist and that there are terrible things in the world. I guess we all do our share and everyone has the capacity to cause harm to others. This reminds me of David Hume's Is and Ought... like I can imagine how it ought to be, as opposed to how it is. Things are never easy because there are no overall rules, for example, there is some contentment in accepting it as it is, but complacency about injustice? There's an ethical dilemma in 'allowing' injustices, so we protect children from vile predators... or at least we 'ought' to... and that would imply that both action and non-action would be mistakes depending on circumstances. It's not always easy to determine an appropriate response or make the right decisions. Sometimes we just don't know what to do... it's inevitable then that some things we decide or do will be regrettable in hindsight, and we call that a mistake, so everyone makes mistakes. The truth applies because there's such a thing as an honest mistake... like we can hurt others without ever intending to, it's unfortunate, but it's an honest mistake. Other times we might just react really badly, and through anger, lash out and say hurtful things or become violent and begin a cycle of anger and guilt. A violent person can be truly sorry, but that doesn't mean they won't do it again, when temper gets out of control it is so harmful, and unstoppable. I know people have their psychological theories about this kind of thing, but we find that the theory is very difficult to apply in practice, and there is quite a large difference between the ideal and the real... yep, is and ought. Yes but that's all in the realm of human behavior. Would you call existence a mistake? And just because it might not be a mistake doesn't mean it is therefore all part of a big pattern or perfect or anything. It can not be known. And this may be uncomfortable. No. I wouldn't call existence a mistake. I know there's a lot of ways to consider existence, random, designed, inexplicable... We get these one liners like 'it's meant to be', and I think such an attitude implies a good deal of equanimity, which is nice. I'm usually concerned with human behavior. In my philosophy suffering is behavior based, not actions in a physical sense, but mental behaviours. I couldn't elaborate on that in a few sentences, so I wont, I'll explain it in length. We identify with our form. This includes two primary objects; the body and the self image. For the sake of definition, the self image is what we think we are. This entails the entire physio/psychological structure we identify with, including belief, worldview, self esteem and, like, everything that is associated with "me" or ''I". To clarify, most people have some notion of ego, but please avoid thinking of that as a thing for the sake of this philosophy, rather, consider it to be non-existent. It's just a name for an imagined aparition, just like 'unicorn' conjures horny horse imagery without every existing. In this way we can say, there aren't any egos. We can get to what we observe as being. We observe thoughts and we observe ego in the same manner as observe unicorn... It's observable that we have self-image and have notions of 'I'. The things we sense, sight sound taste smell touch, all use the nervous system, so everything we sense creates sensation that we can feel. Some people don't have particularly keen perception, but sight does create feelings. Even emotional feelings are also physical sensations... and everthing a person things manifests as a sensation. This means that everything we perceive, even subconsiously, manifests as physical sensations... The sensations occur and then we can notice unpleasant sensations and we notice really nice sensations, and that happens. We already know pleasure and pain. Of course everyone wants pleasure and dosn't want pain, generally speaking... and this is the base of desire, greed and aversions and hatred. The meditation is basically watching as pleasure and pain come an go... just passing sensation, and the practice cultivates equanimity, which is fundamental to calm. The equanimous mind becomes stronger and endure increasing discomfort without being ruffled, and enjoy great pleasure without attachment... because the simple fact is, all sensation is changing. I rarely agree with Tolle, but once he gave an example of just close your eyes and feel the physical sensation in one hand, and notice how that sensation changes in just one minute. Thats how pleasure and pain are just slipping by, they aren't even there and next moment different... The suffering comes into it because the 'I thought' occurs, the ego, the unicorn, and this sensation is all of a sudden happening to me!... I love this feeling or OMG whan will it end! There we have it, a mental behaviour. The thought then creates a sensation and 'I' react to the new sensation as well, and that thought in turn creates more sensation and I react and on it goes... Oh me oh mine and oh 'my' sensation. One person will react very strongly, while another person will 'Keep calm and carry on'. So I ranted a long time, but the summary would say in one sentence, suffering is a result of not being at peace with change.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 7, 2013 4:42:47 GMT -5
Yes but that's all in the realm of human behavior. Would you call existence a mistake? And just because it might not be a mistake doesn't mean it is therefore all part of a big pattern or perfect or anything. It can not be known. And this may be uncomfortable. No. I wouldn't call existence a mistake. I know there's a lot of ways to consider existence, random, designed, inexplicable... We get these one liners like 'it's meant to be', and I think such an attitude implies a good deal of equanimity, which is nice. I'm usually concerned with human behavior. In my philosophy suffering is behavior based, not actions in a physical sense, but mental behaviours. I couldn't elaborate on that in a few sentences, so I wont, I'll explain it in length. We identify with our form. This includes two primary objects; the body and the self image. For the sake of definition, the self image is what we think we are. This entails the entire physio/psychological structure we identify with, including belief, worldview, self esteem and, like, everything that is associated with "me" or ''I". To clarify, most people have some notion of ego, but please avoid thinking of that as a thing for the sake of this philosophy, rather, consider it to be non-existent. It's just a name for an imagined aparition, just like 'unicorn' conjures horny horse imagery without every existing. In this way we can say, there aren't any egos. We can get to what we observe as being. We observe thoughts and we observe ego in the same manner as observe unicorn... It's observable that we have self-image and have notions of 'I'. The things we sense, sight sound taste smell touch, all use the nervous system, so everything we sense creates sensation that we can feel. Some people don't have particularly keen perception, but sight does create feelings. Even emotional feelings are also physical sensations... and everthing a person thinks manifests as a sensation. This means that everything we perceive, even subconsiously, manifests as physical sensations... The sensations occur and then we can notice unpleasant sensations and we notice really nice sensations, and that happens. We already know pleasure and pain. Of course everyone wants pleasure and dosn't want pain, generally speaking... and this is the base of desire, greed and aversions and hatred. The meditation is basically watching as pleasure and pain come an go... just passing sensation, and the practice cultivates equanimity, which is fundamental to calm. The equanimous mind becomes stronger and endure increasing discomfort without being ruffled, and enjoy great pleasure without attachment... because the simple fact is, all sensation is changing. I rarely agree with Tolle, but once he gave an example of just close your eyes and feel the physical sensation in one hand, and notice how that sensation changes in just one minute. Thats how pleasure and pain are just slipping by, they aren't even there and next moment different... The suffering comes into it because the 'I thought' occurs, the ego, the unicorn, and this sensation is all of a sudden happening to me!... I love this feeling or OMG whan will it end! There we have it, a mental behaviour. The thought then creates a sensation and 'I' react to the new sensation as well, and that thought in turn creates more sensation and I react and on it goes... Oh me oh mine and oh 'my' sensation. One person will react very strongly, while another person will 'Keep calm and carry on'. So I ranted a long time, but the summary would say in one sentence, suffering is a result of not being at peace with change.
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Nov 7, 2013 4:44:52 GMT -5
Yes but that's all in the realm of human behavior. Would you call existence a mistake? And just because it might not be a mistake doesn't mean it is therefore all part of a big pattern or perfect or anything. It can not be known. And this may be uncomfortable. No. I wouldn't call existence a mistake. I know there's a lot of ways to consider existence, random, designed, inexplicable... We get these one liners like 'it's meant to be', and I think such an attitude implies a good deal of equanimity, which is nice. I'm usually concerned with human behavior. In my philosophy suffering is behavior based, not actions in a physical sense, but mental behaviours. I couldn't elaborate on that in a few sentences, so I wont, I'll explain it in length. We identify with our form. This includes two primary objects; the body and the self image. For the sake of definition, the self image is what we think we are. This entails the entire physio/psychological structure we identify with, including belief, worldview, self esteem and, like, everything that is associated with "me" or ''I". To clarify, most people have some notion of ego, but please avoid thinking of that as a thing for the sake of this philosophy, rather, consider it to be non-existent. It's just a name for an imagined aparition, just like 'unicorn' conjures horny horse imagery without every existing. In this way we can say, there aren't any egos. We can get to what we observe as being. We observe thoughts and we observe ego in the same manner as observe unicorn... It's observable that we have self-image and have notions of 'I'. The things we sense, sight sound taste smell touch, all use the nervous system, so everything we sense creates sensation that we can feel. Some people don't have particularly keen perception, but sight does create feelings. Even emotional feelings are also physical sensations... and everthing a person things manifests as a sensation. This means that everything we perceive, even subconsiously, manifests as physical sensations... The sensations occur and then we can notice unpleasant sensations and we notice really nice sensations, and that happens. We already know pleasure and pain. Of course everyone wants pleasure and dosn't want pain, generally speaking... and this is the base of desire, greed and aversions and hatred. The meditation is basically watching as pleasure and pain come an go... just passing sensation, and the practice cultivates equanimity, which is fundamental to calm. The equanimous mind becomes stronger and endure increasing discomfort without being ruffled, and enjoy great pleasure without attachment... because the simple fact is, all sensation is changing. I rarely agree with Tolle, but once he gave an example of just close your eyes and feel the physical sensation in one hand, and notice how that sensation changes in just one minute. Thats how pleasure and pain are just slipping by, they aren't even there and next moment different... The suffering comes into it because the 'I thought' occurs, the ego, the unicorn, and this sensation is all of a sudden happening to me!... I love this feeling or OMG whan will it end! There we have it, a mental behaviour. The thought then creates a sensation and 'I' react to the new sensation as well, and that thought in turn creates more sensation and I react and on it goes... Oh me oh mine and oh 'my' sensation. One person will react very strongly, while another person will 'Keep calm and carry on'. So I ranted a long time, but the summary would say in one sentence, suffering is a result of not being at peace with change. so why get a fix on something that isnt reality?
|
|