|
Senses
Nov 18, 2013 10:01:08 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 18, 2013 10:01:08 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. He won't take the bet. Gee, wonder why?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 18, 2013 11:04:08 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Nov 18, 2013 11:04:08 GMT -5
He won't take the bet. Gee, wonder why? Fear of 5 year temp ban?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 18, 2013 11:07:10 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 18, 2013 11:07:10 GMT -5
He won't take the bet. Gee, wonder why? Fear of 5 year temp ban? I only bet him a month!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 18, 2013 13:37:39 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 13:37:39 GMT -5
yes, but he said you "won by default", so did he surrender? when playing blackjack, if the players first two cards tally 16, and the dealers show card is a 10 or ace, the prudent play according to the math is to say "I surrender", resulting in that hand being over, and the player forfeits 1/2 of the original bet. 15 day ban by default?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 18, 2013 15:53:31 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 15:53:31 GMT -5
Greetings.. "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.. The first point was to talk about the definition of reality. The second point was to figure out what would fall within the scope of that definition and what would fall outside of it. By bringing up the 'what if' concept and the Jamestown example, are you saying that there are problems when people believe in stuff that falls outside the scope of reality? If so, do you think anyone disagrees with you? Along those lines, it seems to me if you want to focus on needless suffering that is a result of erroneous belief in the 'unreal' you may find interested parties that agree with you on the focus but disagree with you on what is real and what is unreal. So that brings us back to point 2. When we look at physical forms, say a table or a bottle of water, do these things fall within the scope of the real? On the one hand I say yes, because they're readily experienceable. However, I know enough basic science to know that these are mere perceptions based on light, neural activity, and, ultimately, patterns of probability clouds. It's not much to go on actually. So is reality then just what it appears to be? --- a set of experiences which actually aren't there upon (very) close inspection?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 18, 2013 16:24:17 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 16:24:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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.. The first point was to talk about the definition of reality. The second point was to figure out what would fall within the scope of that definition and what would fall outside of it. By bringing up the 'what if' concept and the Jamestown example, are you saying that there are problems when people believe in stuff that falls outside the scope of reality? If so, do you think anyone disagrees with you? Along those lines, it seems to me if you want to focus on needless suffering that is a result of erroneous belief in the 'unreal' you may find interested parties that agree with you on the focus but disagree with you on what is real and what is unreal. So that brings us back to point 2. When we look at physical forms, say a table or a bottle of water, do these things fall within the scope of the real? On the one hand I say yes, because they're readily experienceable. However, I know enough basic science to know that these are mere perceptions based on light, neural activity, and, ultimately, patterns of probability clouds. It's not much to go on actually. So is reality then just what it appears to be? --- a set of experiences which actually aren't there upon (very) close inspection? unrelated, but twas a ha ha, over here while reading your reply, the thought appeared, "jeez, what the hell is Tzu's problem with Jamestown??" first permanent settlement, n all that. I mean sure, they mighta had some issues with the locals, and presumably dabbled in a little cannibalism during the lean times ... but, dang, how did that story wind up on the tzu hit list? lol. but I see he was actually talking about Jonestown, so that makes sense now... only caught my eye cuz I just happened to have visited Jamestown island last week on a school field trip I thought it was nice...
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 18, 2013 17:18:14 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 18, 2013 17:18:14 GMT -5
yes, but he said you "won by default", so did he surrender? when playing blackjack, if the players first two cards tally 16, and the dealers show card is a 10 or ace, the prudent play according to the math is to say "I surrender", resulting in that hand being over, and the player forfeits 1/2 of the original bet. 15 day ban by default? Naah, wouldn't be right ... he didn't shake on it.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 18, 2013 20:58:19 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 18, 2013 20:58:19 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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.. The first point was to talk about the definition of reality. The second point was to figure out what would fall within the scope of that definition and what would fall outside of it. By bringing up the 'what if' concept and the Jamestown example, are you saying that there are problems when people believe in stuff that falls outside the scope of reality? If so, do you think anyone disagrees with you? Along those lines, it seems to me if you want to focus on needless suffering that is a result of erroneous belief in the 'unreal' you may find interested parties that agree with you on the focus but disagree with you on what is real and what is unreal. So that brings us back to point 2. When we look at physical forms, say a table or a bottle of water, do these things fall within the scope of the real? On the one hand I say yes, because they're readily experienceable. However, I know enough basic science to know that these are mere perceptions based on light, neural activity, and, ultimately, patterns of probability clouds. It's not much to go on actually. So is reality then just what it appears to be? --- a set of experiences which actually aren't there upon (very) close inspection? Regarding a 'table' or a 'chair', while science can deconstruct the forms that appear as the table or chair, that deconstruction is a mental process.. the table and chair actually exist, they consistently appear within our field of experience, whether we describe them as 'table and chair' or as abstract scientific expressions, in either case they function in the capacity for which they were designed.. there is no scientific or philosophical statement that 'vanishes' the table or chair into 'light', neural activity, or patterns of probability clouds during Thanksgiving dinner, those descriptions are mental imagery.. Yes, there are some that disagree with the understanding that "there are problems when people believe in stuff that falls outside the scope of reality", but.. those people are the illusionists that will contrive and conjure 'stories' that warp the common meanings of words to suit their uncommon beliefs about reality.. which is one of the motivations i have for seeking a common understanding of reality, so we can move toward greater cooperation and less conflict.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 19, 2013 0:10:23 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 19, 2013 0:10:23 GMT -5
Here is the condensed version of my conversation with Tzu' on the nature of reality: laffy: "Reality is a word. An idea". tzu': "I prefer the first part of the dictionary definition as the second part serves as justification for 'Gurus of Truth' to imagine magic Pink Unicorns and the resulting Spiritual Circus involving claims of inclusion and oneness is divisive". laffy: "The dictionary definition is a consensus that expresses 'reality' in terms of 4 other ideas: 'actually', 'exist', 'appear' and 'imagined'. I have no issue if you don't like the 2nd part of the definition and I see no connection between reality and magic Pink Unicorns or Gurus of Truth. Perhaps we can discuss the relationship between these other elemental ideas that comprise 'reality': 'actuality' and 'imagination'? Sorry, too soon to discuss beliefs or oneness as there's no ground for that yet. tzu' : "Ha ha I was mocking you with the Pink Unicorns. I like simple: are Pink Unicorns imaginary? People shoot Pink Unicorns. Do you want to talk about that? Are you interested in a discussion about the relationship between imagination and reality?" laffy: "Yes, didn't you read what I wrote? I already agreed that Pink Unicorns are imaginary and have been discussing and offering to discuss that relationship. Do you mistake the ideas of actuality, existence and appearances for anything other than ideas?" ---- You have got to be the most dishonest person I've ever corresponded with. Now you didn't respond directly to my last reply to you but you did start whining to Maxy about how I create illusions and how you've endured my manipulations so stoically, right down to an incoherent reference to some posts that were quoted out of order and you even had the audacity to comment on how I'd "gone off". Of course, right on schedule, in your last you renew your paranoid babblings about "illusionists" and "conjurer's" that share your predilection for mistaking ideas about reality for reality. In contrast, I managed to offer you sincere discussion on the interest you claimed to have despite the distractions that you constantly weave into what you write. It's very plain for anyone to see from that conversation that your repetitive invitations into discussion are absolutely devoid of sincerity. It seems to me that you simply don't like, and likely feel somehow threatened by the substance of what I write to you, so you then blow things up into a festival of ego-baiting, fit-throwing and general emotional outburst to cover your exit from the conversation. So not only are you a coward, in that you run from the talk that you initiate, but you are a liar in stating that you even want the conversation to begin with. I'm beginning to suspect that your mantra about how you come empty when noone else does is a deliberate fun-house mirror distortion on your part to help maximize the fake drama. The bottom line here is that you talk of still mind and clarity. It is all just talk. And by the way -- the beliefs that you carry around, have openly proclaimed, and are obviously operating on are pretty much the standard new-age rap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 19, 2013 8:38:20 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 8:38:20 GMT -5
The first point was to talk about the definition of reality. The second point was to figure out what would fall within the scope of that definition and what would fall outside of it. By bringing up the 'what if' concept and the Jamestown example, are you saying that there are problems when people believe in stuff that falls outside the scope of reality? If so, do you think anyone disagrees with you? Along those lines, it seems to me if you want to focus on needless suffering that is a result of erroneous belief in the 'unreal' you may find interested parties that agree with you on the focus but disagree with you on what is real and what is unreal. So that brings us back to point 2. When we look at physical forms, say a table or a bottle of water, do these things fall within the scope of the real? On the one hand I say yes, because they're readily experienceable. However, I know enough basic science to know that these are mere perceptions based on light, neural activity, and, ultimately, patterns of probability clouds. It's not much to go on actually. So is reality then just what it appears to be? --- a set of experiences which actually aren't there upon (very) close inspection? unrelated, but twas a ha ha, over here while reading your reply, the thought appeared, "jeez, what the hell is Tzu's problem with Jamestown??" first permanent settlement, n all that. I mean sure, they mighta had some issues with the locals, and presumably dabbled in a little cannibalism during the lean times ... but, dang, how did that story wind up on the tzu hit list? lol. but I see he was actually talking about Jonestown, so that makes sense now... only caught my eye cuz I just happened to have visited Jamestown island last week on a school field trip I thought it was nice... oops!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 19, 2013 8:47:27 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 8:47:27 GMT -5
The first point was to talk about the definition of reality. The second point was to figure out what would fall within the scope of that definition and what would fall outside of it. By bringing up the 'what if' concept and the Jamestown example, are you saying that there are problems when people believe in stuff that falls outside the scope of reality? If so, do you think anyone disagrees with you? Along those lines, it seems to me if you want to focus on needless suffering that is a result of erroneous belief in the 'unreal' you may find interested parties that agree with you on the focus but disagree with you on what is real and what is unreal. So that brings us back to point 2. When we look at physical forms, say a table or a bottle of water, do these things fall within the scope of the real? On the one hand I say yes, because they're readily experienceable. However, I know enough basic science to know that these are mere perceptions based on light, neural activity, and, ultimately, patterns of probability clouds. It's not much to go on actually. So is reality then just what it appears to be? --- a set of experiences which actually aren't there upon (very) close inspection? Regarding a 'table' or a 'chair', while science can deconstruct the forms that appear as the table or chair, that deconstruction is a mental process.. the table and chair actually exist, they consistently appear within our field of experience, whether we describe them as 'table and chair' or as abstract scientific expressions, in either case they function in the capacity for which they were designed.. there is no scientific or philosophical statement that 'vanishes' the table or chair into 'light', neural activity, or patterns of probability clouds during Thanksgiving dinner, those descriptions are mental imagery.. So would you say that observations using tools like electron microscopes or Hubble Space Telescopes don't fit within the realm of reality? To me they do. Here's a hydrothermal vent worm, up close:
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 19, 2013 10:06:44 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Nov 19, 2013 10:06:44 GMT -5
Regarding a 'table' or a 'chair', while science can deconstruct the forms that appear as the table or chair, that deconstruction is a mental process.. the table and chair actually exist, they consistently appear within our field of experience, whether we describe them as 'table and chair' or as abstract scientific expressions, in either case they function in the capacity for which they were designed.. there is no scientific or philosophical statement that 'vanishes' the table or chair into 'light', neural activity, or patterns of probability clouds during Thanksgiving dinner, those descriptions are mental imagery.. So would you say that observations using tools like electron microscopes or Hubble Space Telescopes don't fit within the realm of reality? To me they do. Here's a hydrothermal vent worm, up close: Are you sure that's not a sandworm from Dune?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 19, 2013 10:11:02 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Nov 19, 2013 10:11:02 GMT -5
Here is the condensed version of my conversation with Tzu' on the nature of reality: laffy: "Reality is a word. An idea". tzu': "I prefer the first part of the dictionary definition as the second part serves as justification for 'Gurus of Truth' to imagine magic Pink Unicorns and the resulting Spiritual Circus involving claims of inclusion and oneness is divisive". laffy: "The dictionary definition is a consensus that expresses 'reality' in terms of 4 other ideas: 'actually', 'exist', 'appear' and 'imagined'. I have no issue if you don't like the 2nd part of the definition and I see no connection between reality and magic Pink Unicorns or Gurus of Truth. Perhaps we can discuss the relationship between these other elemental ideas that comprise 'reality': 'actuality' and 'imagination'? Sorry, too soon to discuss beliefs or oneness as there's no ground for that yet. tzu' : "Ha ha I was mocking you with the Pink Unicorns. I like simple: are Pink Unicorns imaginary? People shoot Pink Unicorns. Do you want to talk about that? Are you interested in a discussion about the relationship between imagination and reality?" laffy: "Yes, didn't you read what I wrote? I already agreed that Pink Unicorns are imaginary and have been discussing and offering to discuss that relationship. Do you mistake the ideas of actuality, existence and appearances for anything other than ideas?" ---- You have got to be the most dishonest person I've ever corresponded with. Now you didn't respond directly to my last reply to you but you did start whining to Maxy about how I create illusions and how you've endured my manipulations so stoically, right down to an incoherent reference to some posts that were quoted out of order and you even had the audacity to comment on how I'd "gone off". Of course, right on schedule, in your last you renew your paranoid babblings about "illusionists" and "conjurer's" that share your predilection for mistaking ideas about reality for reality. In contrast, I managed to offer you sincere discussion on the interest you claimed to have despite the distractions that you constantly weave into what you write. It's very plain for anyone to see from that conversation that your repetitive invitations into discussion are absolutely devoid of sincerity. It seems to me that you simply don't like, and likely feel somehow threatened by the substance of what I write to you, so you then blow things up into a festival of ego-baiting, fit-throwing and general emotional outburst to cover your exit from the conversation. So not only are you a coward, in that you run from the talk that you initiate, but you are a liar in stating that you even want the conversation to begin with. I'm beginning to suspect that your mantra about how you come empty when noone else does is a deliberate fun-house mirror distortion on your part to help maximize the fake drama. The bottom line here is that you talk of still mind and clarity. It is all just talk. And by the way -- the beliefs that you carry around, have openly proclaimed, and are obviously operating on are pretty much the standard new-age rap. So, Tzu is a drama queen first and foremost?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 19, 2013 12:46:01 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 19, 2013 12:46:01 GMT -5
Here is the condensed version of my conversation with Tzu' on the nature of reality: laffy: "Reality is a word. An idea". tzu': "I prefer the first part of the dictionary definition as the second part serves as justification for 'Gurus of Truth' to imagine magic Pink Unicorns and the resulting Spiritual Circus involving claims of inclusion and oneness is divisive". laffy: "The dictionary definition is a consensus that expresses 'reality' in terms of 4 other ideas: 'actually', 'exist', 'appear' and 'imagined'. I have no issue if you don't like the 2nd part of the definition and I see no connection between reality and magic Pink Unicorns or Gurus of Truth. Perhaps we can discuss the relationship between these other elemental ideas that comprise 'reality': 'actuality' and 'imagination'? Sorry, too soon to discuss beliefs or oneness as there's no ground for that yet. tzu' : "Ha ha I was mocking you with the Pink Unicorns. I like simple: are Pink Unicorns imaginary? People shoot Pink Unicorns. Do you want to talk about that? Are you interested in a discussion about the relationship between imagination and reality?" laffy: "Yes, didn't you read what I wrote? I already agreed that Pink Unicorns are imaginary and have been discussing and offering to discuss that relationship. Do you mistake the ideas of actuality, existence and appearances for anything other than ideas?" ---- You have got to be the most dishonest person I've ever corresponded with. Now you didn't respond directly to my last reply to you but you did start whining to Maxy about how I create illusions and how you've endured my manipulations so stoically, right down to an incoherent reference to some posts that were quoted out of order and you even had the audacity to comment on how I'd "gone off". Of course, right on schedule, in your last you renew your paranoid babblings about "illusionists" and "conjurer's" that share your predilection for mistaking ideas about reality for reality. In contrast, I managed to offer you sincere discussion on the interest you claimed to have despite the distractions that you constantly weave into what you write. It's very plain for anyone to see from that conversation that your repetitive invitations into discussion are absolutely devoid of sincerity. It seems to me that you simply don't like, and likely feel somehow threatened by the substance of what I write to you, so you then blow things up into a festival of ego-baiting, fit-throwing and general emotional outburst to cover your exit from the conversation. So not only are you a coward, in that you run from the talk that you initiate, but you are a liar in stating that you even want the conversation to begin with. I'm beginning to suspect that your mantra about how you come empty when noone else does is a deliberate fun-house mirror distortion on your part to help maximize the fake drama. The bottom line here is that you talk of still mind and clarity. It is all just talk. And by the way -- the beliefs that you carry around, have openly proclaimed, and are obviously operating on are pretty much the standard new-age rap. So, Tzu is a drama queen first and foremost? Whether he's conscious of it or not, this constant act of inviting OHD, dragging in stuff from outside the dialog, and then accusing the other guy of not coming empty, is obviously formulaic.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 19, 2013 20:54:37 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 19, 2013 20:54:37 GMT -5
Greetings.. Regarding a 'table' or a 'chair', while science can deconstruct the forms that appear as the table or chair, that deconstruction is a mental process.. the table and chair actually exist, they consistently appear within our field of experience, whether we describe them as 'table and chair' or as abstract scientific expressions, in either case they function in the capacity for which they were designed.. there is no scientific or philosophical statement that 'vanishes' the table or chair into 'light', neural activity, or patterns of probability clouds during Thanksgiving dinner, those descriptions are mental imagery.. So would you say that observations using tools like electron microscopes or Hubble Space Telescopes don't fit within the realm of reality? To me they do. Here's a hydrothermal vent worm, up close: Of course those tools are a function of reality, they are windows beyond the limitations of our physical senses.. do the observations made by those tools invalidate the form and function of the table and chair? the information learned by observing the infinitely small and the infinitely large has many uses, but it shouldn't supplant common-sense.. the table and chairs at Thanksgiving will function just as they were designed, regardless of the composition.. those really are tables and chairs, AND they are so much more, or less, depending on the intention of your perception.. Be well..
|
|