Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 17, 2013 10:27:12 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 10:27:12 GMT -5
Greetings.. I don't care about any of that stuff. The only thing I'm interested in is the substantive convo. The definition of reality has been posted. Now what falls within what is real and what falls outside of it? Great! So, rather than 'the' definition of reality, i'm more inclined to accept the Wiki condensed version, as 'a' definition, leaving open the opportunity for revisions as we explore that definition's relationship with 'isness'.. Do you accept that imagery which exists solely within the mind, and which cannot be demonstrated as an actuality, imagery such as 'Pink Unicorns', is not a component of reality? Be well.. "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." So all I have to go on with pink unicorns is my imagination or the imagination of others in the form of illustration. But obviously whether a pink unicorn actually exists I just don't know. So it seems to me reality is dependent on my field of knowledge, so to speak. There may be a whole planet suffering overpopulation problems with pink unicorns for all I know. But if we don't include in reality species which aren't known to exist then what of the case in 2005 when a child drew a picture of a white hairy crab and called it the yeti crab. Then in 2006 the actual yeti crab was discovered? Was the yeti crab part of reality in 2005 or did it just come into existence in 2006? BTW, I made up the part of the child making the drawing in 2005. In other words, what is included in reality is not known because we can not know all of what actually exists.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 17, 2013 11:20:33 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 17, 2013 11:20:33 GMT -5
Yeah, hey, you called it. You's bearboyuant I tells ya'! dude ... that like made my month here!
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 17, 2013 11:41:31 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 17, 2013 11:41:31 GMT -5
Greetings.. My 'answer' isn't intended to be an 'answer'.. it points to your inclination for creating illusions of words that appears to be a denial, more like plausible denial, but.. the reality is that if i were inclined to do the research and i'm not and you know it, that reality is that you interject into many more discussions i do.. so, denial is your 'get out of jail free' card.. and, even then, you are so attached to being 'right' that you quote a host of texts out of context to create the illusion that you actually know is false.. denial is not a defensible position, it's an attachment to a past that you know you want to create illusions to cover the actuality.. i am secure in the certainty of what transpired, and i can simply let it go.. 'you' doth protest too much, too invested in gaining people's belief in your right-ness.. Let's be clear here -- are you saying that I interject into more discussion overall or, specifically, that I make unsolicited replies to you more often than you make unsolicited replies to me? I tell you with a certainty that, especially in the past month (... and as I recall, the last three), it has been you more often than not that has initiated the conversation between you and I. Do you maintain otherwise? o.k., so not only was the original question completely dodged by Tzu: Greetings.. I see that you're not adverse to a bit of hostility, either.. the simple observation is that the perps in the ST hostility market were at it long before i arrived, i'm just making it clear that their illusion that their brand of hostility is somehow spiritual, is both an illusion and unrelated to spirituality.. Be well.. So did you take what Si had to say in this particular instance as being hostile or were you referring to something else? ... but now, when confronted with the fact that he has been on a crusade against laughter for the past few months ... the reply is: Tzu', the question of which one of us has requested the attention of the other by way of unsolicited reply over the past few months is a matter of what was actually posted in the past, as a record of that exists. Rather than make claims based on what we imagine to be the case, one of use could simply go back and look and report on the actuality. I've got no incentive to just go and do that because your pattern is simply to ignore this type of evidence when presented. I'll make you a deal -- I'll go do the work to find out, but if it turns out that you replied to me on an unsolicited basis more often that I replied to you have to agree to a one-month vacation. I'll even put the results up for discussion by the others so the judgment call on what the results mean isn't made by me.
What do you say?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 17, 2013 12:25:40 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 17, 2013 12:25:40 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Great! So, rather than 'the' definition of reality, i'm more inclined to accept the Wiki condensed version, as 'a' definition, leaving open the opportunity for revisions as we explore that definition's relationship with 'isness'.. Do you accept that imagery which exists solely within the mind, and which cannot be demonstrated as an actuality, imagery such as 'Pink Unicorns', is not a component of reality? Be well.. "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." So all I have to go on with pink unicorns is my imagination or the imagination of others in the form of illustration. But obviously whether a pink unicorn actually exists I just don't know. So it seems to me reality is dependent on my field of knowledge, so to speak. There may be a whole planet suffering overpopulation problems with pink unicorns for all I know. But if we don't include in reality species which aren't known to exist then what of the case in 2005 when a child drew a picture of a white hairy crab and called it the yeti crab. Then in 2006 the actual yeti crab was discovered? Was the yeti crab part of reality in 2005 or did it just come into existence in 2006? BTW, I made up the part of the child making the drawing in 2005. In other words, what is included in reality is not known because we can not know all of what actually exists. Hi Max: You raise an interesting issue, 'what if' something exists outside of the scope of our awareness, and we define reality as that which only exists within the scope of our awareness.. i leave open the option for reality to be revealed by expanding awareness, reality as i understand it, exists as manifested and as the 'potential' for manifestation.. It is the use of 'what if' statements to create illusions that have no basis, but which are marketed as 'truth', that inspire and create confusion about 'reality'.. one such situation played-out in a remote jungle camp of 'illusion believers', it was Jonestown.. 'reality' bears the burden of scrutiny, as the opportunity for potential can be co opted as an illusion for the expedience of an agenda.. claims of potential that have been scrutinized for probability, i.e.: 'Pink Unicorns', and which have been demonstrated as implausible, fail the test of actuality but remain as improbable potential.. it is counter-productive to build a model of reality that has as its basis unverifiable claims, but.. it is appropriate to examine all potential as 'potential'.. 'reality' remains present and experiencable even when the mind becomes still, it is the experience of reality that reveals its nature.. 'what if' statements about potential happenings or revelations are not the same as those potential revelations actually happening.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 17, 2013 12:42:23 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. My 'answer' isn't intended to be an 'answer'.. it points to your inclination for creating illusions of words that appears to be a denial, more like plausible denial, but.. the reality is that if i were inclined to do the research and i'm not and you know it, that reality is that you interject into many more discussions i do.. so, denial is your 'get out of jail free' card.. and, even then, you are so attached to being 'right' that you quote a host of texts out of context to create the illusion that you actually know is false.. denial is not a defensible position, it's an attachment to a past that you know you want to create illusions to cover the actuality.. i am secure in the certainty of what transpired, and i can simply let it go.. 'you' doth protest too much, too invested in gaining people's belief in your right-ness.. Let's be clear here -- are you saying that I interject into more discussion overall or, specifically, that I make unsolicited replies to you more often than you make unsolicited replies to me? I tell you with a certainty that, especially in the past month (... and as I recall, the last three), it has been you more often than not that has initiated the conversation between you and I. Do you maintain otherwise? o.k., so not only was the original question completely dodged by Tzu: So did you take what Si had to say in this particular instance as being hostile or were you referring to something else? ... but now, when confronted with the fact that he has been on a crusade against laughter for the past few months ... the reply is: Tzu', the question of which one of us has requested the attention of the other by way of unsolicited reply over the past few months is a matter of what was actually posted in the past, as a record of that exists. Rather than make claims based on what we imagine to be the case, one of use could simply go back and look and report on the actuality. I've got no incentive to just go and do that because your pattern is simply to ignore this type of evidence when presented. I'll make you a deal -- I'll go do the work to find out, but if it turns out that you replied to me on an unsolicited basis more often that I replied to you have to agree to a one-month vacation. I'll even put the results up for discussion by the others so the judgment call on what the results mean isn't made by me.
What do you sayy?
No, you and the club have demonstrated no concern for ethical processes.. you are maintaining a focused crusade against 'Tzu', manipulating a ploy to silence Tzu's 'pointing' at what is actually happening, by contriving a Kangaroo Court of consensus among an already biased group of cronies.. it seems like we've been appointed a manipulative moderator.. so, i'll take your newest Tzu crusade to be a 'no' to the invitation to discus openly honestly, and sincerely, the nature of 'reality'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 17, 2013 12:48:20 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 17, 2013 12:48:20 GMT -5
Greetings.. o.k., so not only was the original question completely dodged by Tzu: ... but now, when confronted with the fact that he has been on a crusade against laughter for the past few months ... the reply is: Tzu', the question of which one of us has requested the attention of the other by way of unsolicited reply over the past few months is a matter of what was actually posted in the past, as a record of that exists. Rather than make claims based on what we imagine to be the case, one of use could simply go back and look and report on the actuality. I've got no incentive to just go and do that because your pattern is simply to ignore this type of evidence when presented. I'll make you a deal -- I'll go do the work to find out, but if it turns out that you replied to me on an unsolicited basis more often that I replied to you have to agree to a one-month vacation. I'll even put the results up for discussion by the others so the judgment call on what the results mean isn't made by me.
What do you sayy?
No, you and the club have demonstrated no concern for ethical processes.. you are maintaining a focused crusade against 'Tzu', manipulating a ploy to silence Tzu's 'pointing' at what is actually happening, by contriving a Kangaroo Court of consensus among an already biased group of cronies.. it seems like we've been appointed a manipulative moderator.. so, i'll take your newest Tzu crusade to be a 'no' to the invitation to discus openly honestly, and sincerely, the nature of 'reality'.. Be well.. yeah, uh-huh ... thought so. You have ZERO regard for actuality. A chance to put your money where your mouth is. And you run away. You are a coward.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 17, 2013 12:51:43 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 17, 2013 12:51:43 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. My 'answer' isn't intended to be an 'answer'.. it points to your inclination for creating illusions of words that appears to be a denial, more like plausible denial, but.. the reality is that if i were inclined to do the research and i'm not and you know it, that reality is that you interject into many more discussions i do.. so, denial is your 'get out of jail free' card.. and, even then, you are so attached to being 'right' that you quote a host of texts out of context to create the illusion that you actually know is false.. denial is not a defensible position, it's an attachment to a past that you know you want to create illusions to cover the actuality.. i am secure in the certainty of what transpired, and i can simply let it go.. 'you' doth protest too much, too invested in gaining people's belief in your right-ness.. Let's be clear here -- are you saying that I interject into more discussion overall or, specifically, that I make unsolicited replies to you more often than you make unsolicited replies to me? I tell you with a certainty that, especially in the past month (... and as I recall, the last three), it has been you more often than not that has initiated the conversation between you and I. Do you maintain otherwise? o.k., so not only was the original question completely dodged by Tzu: So did you take what Si had to say in this particular instance as being hostile or were you referring to something else? ... but now, when confronted with the fact that he has been on a crusade against laughter for the past few months ... the reply is: Tzu', the question of which one of us has requested the attention of the other by way of unsolicited reply over the past few months is a matter of what was actually posted in the past, as a record of that exists. Rather than make claims based on what we imagine to be the case, one of use could simply go back and look and report on the actuality. I've got no incentive to just go and do that because your pattern is simply to ignore this type of evidence when presented. I'll make you a deal -- I'll go do the work to find out, but if it turns out that you replied to me on an unsolicited basis more often that I replied to you have to agree to a one-month vacation. I'll even put the results up for discussion by the others so the judgment call on what the results mean isn't made by me.
What do you say?
The more i 'listen' to what you've posted, the more it reveals a desperate attempt to manipulate a result fueled by your admitted emotional revulsion of Tzu.. ask yourself, as a moderator, if that is a quality that serves the forum's best interests.. you really should let it go, man.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 17, 2013 12:54:38 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 17, 2013 12:54:38 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. No, you and the club have demonstrated no concern for ethical processes.. you are maintaining a focused crusade against 'Tzu', manipulating a ploy to silence Tzu's 'pointing' at what is actually happening, by contriving a Kangaroo Court of consensus among an already biased group of cronies.. it seems like we've been appointed a manipulative moderator.. so, i'll take your newest Tzu crusade to be a 'no' to the invitation to discus openly honestly, and sincerely, the nature of 'reality'.. Be well.. yeah, uh-huh ... thought so. You have ZERO regard for actuality. A chance to put your money where your mouth is. And you run away. You are a coward. Nice, Bill.. you've reached a new low, as a person, and as a representative of this forum.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 17, 2013 13:08:08 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 17, 2013 13:08:08 GMT -5
Greetings.. o.k., so not only was the original question completely dodged by Tzu: ... but now, when confronted with the fact that he has been on a crusade against laughter for the past few months ... the reply is: Tzu', the question of which one of us has requested the attention of the other by way of unsolicited reply over the past few months is a matter of what was actually posted in the past, as a record of that exists. Rather than make claims based on what we imagine to be the case, one of use could simply go back and look and report on the actuality. I've got no incentive to just go and do that because your pattern is simply to ignore this type of evidence when presented. I'll make you a deal -- I'll go do the work to find out, but if it turns out that you replied to me on an unsolicited basis more often that I replied to you have to agree to a one-month vacation. I'll even put the results up for discussion by the others so the judgment call on what the results mean isn't made by me.
What do you say?
The more i 'listen' to what you've posted, the more it reveals a desperate attempt to manipulate a result fueled by your admitted emotional revulsion of Tzu.. ask yourself, as a moderator, if that is a quality that serves the forum's best interests.. you really should let it go, man.. Be well.. Look it's a simple question with two different answers based on perspective ... a classic case of he said/he said. ... but the record is there for us to look at. Do you want to look at it. Or not? You talk of being still and looking at what is. It is all talk.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 17, 2013 13:09:07 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 17, 2013 13:09:07 GMT -5
Greetings.. yeah, uh-huh ... thought so. You have ZERO regard for actuality. A chance to put your money where your mouth is. And you run away. You are a coward. Nice, Bill.. you've reached a new low, as a person, and as a representative of this forum.. Be well.. Oh, did you think you had some special monopoly on ego-baiting?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 17, 2013 13:40:39 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 17, 2013 13:40:39 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. The more i 'listen' to what you've posted, the more it reveals a desperate attempt to manipulate a result fueled by your admitted emotional revulsion of Tzu.. ask yourself, as a moderator, if that is a quality that serves the forum's best interests.. you really should let it go, man.. Be well.. Look it's a simple question with two different answers based on perspective ... a classic case of he said/he said. ... but the record is there for us to look at. Do you want to look at it. Or not? You talk of being still and looking at what is. It is all talk. Get a grip, man.. you're all about character assassination, and i'm trying to move beyond this crusade you're on.. look, you've got the skills to do the research and create the illusions out of context and i don't, so you win by default.. you can manipulate and misrepresent this crusade any way you choose, and i'm not skilled enough to counter your illusion, and frankly.. i came to this forum hoping to find people interested in exploring what is actually happening, but.. the actuality turns-out to be that there is a small group, you included, that is focused an manipulating this forum to serve your intended agenda.. so, i'll seek other members that might actually be interested in open, honest, sincere discussion about the nature of reality, you've revealed your 'nature' quite tragically.. good luck with your crusade.. Oh, and your awareness of stillness is filled with your 'need' to rummage through the dumpster to build the illusions that serve your self-image.. i've shown you what 'is', and you're flailing wildly to salvage your self-image.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 17, 2013 23:15:08 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 17, 2013 23:15:08 GMT -5
Greetings.. Look it's a simple question with two different answers based on perspective ... a classic case of he said/he said. ... but the record is there for us to look at. Do you want to look at it. Or not? You talk of being still and looking at what is. It is all talk. Get a grip, man.. you're all about character assassination, and i'm trying to move beyond this crusade you're on.. look, you've got the skills to do the research and create the illusions out of context and i don't, so you win by default.. you can manipulate and misrepresent this crusade any way you choose, and i'm not skilled enough to counter your illusion, and frankly.. i came to this forum hoping to find people interested in exploring what is actually happening, but.. the actuality turns-out to be that there is a small group, you included, that is focused an manipulating this forum to serve your intended agenda.. so, i'll seek other members that might actually be interested in open, honest, sincere discussion about the nature of reality, you've revealed your 'nature' quite tragically.. good luck with your crusade.. Oh, and your awareness of stillness is filled with your 'need' to rummage through the dumpster to build the illusions that serve your self-image.. i've shown you what 'is', and you're flailing wildly to salvage your self-image.. Be well.. Actuality is a word, it is an idea, and as such, it is contextual. It's really quite simple, you say that I interject into conversations more often that you do, and, I maintain that for the past three months it has been you that has written me the greater number of unsolicited replies than I you. The question can be boiled down to one that is completely objective and based on a simple question. It's simply a matter of counting posts of this structure: Greetings.. What is YOUR interest in the relationship i have with other members? why not bring something substantive and original to the discussion, 'Tzu slayers' are a dime a dozen here at ST.. or, is that how it is on the other side of the globe, you just jump on with the others? c'mon kids where's your clarity, where's your capacity to let go and see past your beliefs?.. Be well.. Perfect example of your imagination run amok. This same element of paranoia was a major factor in my choosing to disengage with verby. Primarily for his own well-being. Here, you see, I've quoted you in a sub-dialog that I wasn't a part of until I quoted you. The number of times this has happened over a given period from each side of the fence, is the contextual actuality that's available to anyone to find simply by browsing the archives. As to the rest of what you've said there, it is primarily ego-baiting. The manipulation that you're imagining is in your mind only and quoting you back your words verbatim is only an illusion if you don't remember typing them and in that case the illusion is the denial that the words were yours to begin with. I count at least 7 ideas there that you've taken for something other than ideas and thereby have spun up an imagined psuedo-reality around amounting to a pompous and paranoid story. Stop doing that. Just be still, stop thinking, and pay attention to what is actually being typed and posted.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 17, 2013 23:29:23 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 17, 2013 23:29:23 GMT -5
the invitation to discus openly honestly, and sincerely, the nature of 'reality'.. The invitation and the conversation about reality are one matter. As far as what you claimed you were interested in, this word, this idea: "reality", here's the bottom line: Just take every noun, pronoun or non-pronoun used in the sense of a pronoun that you reference in these two posts. Each of those words refer to ideas about reality that you have mistaken to have actual existence. You live in a dream world and wander around aimlessly talking about still-mind clarity, all the while following a map of la-la-land in your head. It is all talk.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 18, 2013 8:35:20 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Nov 18, 2013 8:35:20 GMT -5
Tzu', the question of which one of us has requested the attention of the other by way of unsolicited reply over the past few months is a matter of what was actually posted in the past, as a record of that exists. Rather than make claims based on what we imagine to be the case, one of use could simply go back and look and report on the actuality. I've got no incentive to just go and do that because your pattern is simply to ignore this type of evidence when presented. I'll make you a deal -- I'll go do the work to find out, but if it turns out that you replied to me on an unsolicited basis more often that I replied to you have to agree to a one-month vacation. I'll even put the results up for discussion by the others so the judgment call on what the results mean isn't made by me.
What do you say?
Cool. Please do.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 18, 2013 8:45:58 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Nov 18, 2013 8:45:58 GMT -5
Greetings.. Look it's a simple question with two different answers based on perspective ... a classic case of he said/he said. ... but the record is there for us to look at. Do you want to look at it. Or not? You talk of being still and looking at what is. It is all talk. Get a grip, man.. you're all about character assassination, and i'm trying to move beyond this crusade you're on.. look, you've got the skills to do the research and create the illusions out of context and i don't, so you win by default.. you can manipulate and misrepresent this crusade any way you choose, and i'm not skilled enough to counter your illusion, and frankly.. i came to this forum hoping to find people interested in exploring what is actually happening, but.. the actuality turns-out to be that there is a small group, you included, that is focused an manipulating this forum to serve your intended agenda.. so, i'll seek other members that might actually be interested in open, honest, sincere discussion about the nature of reality, you've revealed your 'nature' quite tragically.. good luck with your crusade.. Oh, and your awareness of stillness is filled with your 'need' to rummage through the dumpster to build the illusions that serve your self-image.. i've shown you what 'is', and you're flailing wildly to salvage your self-image.. Be well.. The only one I see flailing wildly at the moment is you. Laughter's points are always well documented and properly linked. You are on a crusade since almost a year now. You've talked yourself into a snotty little corner with your Anti-Forum-Borg act.
|
|