|
Senses
Nov 19, 2013 21:19:21 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Nov 19, 2013 21:19:21 GMT -5
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. Well, pretending can be fun, too.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 19, 2013 23:39:36 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 19, 2013 23:39:36 GMT -5
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 23:44:49 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Nov 19, 2013 23:44:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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.. So reality is determined, at least in part, on the basis of utility and function?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 20, 2013 6:54:42 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 20, 2013 6:54:42 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. 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.. So reality is determined, at least in part, on the basis of utility and function? Yes.. to quote a genius: "It is what it is".. it 'is' a chair AND it 'is' a cloud of energy acting consistently like a chair.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 20, 2013 10:29:48 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 20, 2013 10:29:48 GMT -5
Greetings.. So reality is determined, at least in part, on the basis of utility and function? Yes.. to quote a genius: "It is what it is".. it 'is' a chair AND it 'is' a cloud of energy acting consistently like a chair.. Be well.. "Cloud of energy" is an idea about reality. As is "chair". As is "consistent action".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 20, 2013 12:55:17 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 12:55:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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.. Cool. So here is what we started with: "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." Whereas a chair appears to have four legs, made of wood, etc. we know that this is just an appearance. As it actually exists is much more ephemeral, as demonstrated by the tools of science, which effectively amplify our senses. So reality in the case of most things and how they actually exist, according to the definition we started with, is not what it appears at all. However what you are saying seems to be that the appearance isn't as important when regarding what reality is, as the function of the thing we are talking about. So while a chair's actual existence, not its appearance, is ephemeral, its function is what matters in terms of reality. Am I getting your drift there?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 20, 2013 13:43:16 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 20, 2013 13:43:16 GMT -5
Hmmmm ... wonder if Tzu' is so attached to his self-image as to restrain from throwing a hissy-fit that I've dared to respond to him in the current conversation about reality? This presents him with a quandary in that both silence and the lack of silence on the issue of the interjection (as opposed to the substance of the interjection itself) can be interpreted as this kind of maintenance of the image. If he does choose the avenue of lack of restraint, and if he follows the pattern of his other replies in this thread, it won't be a half-measure, and it's likely to include a veritable vomitus of vitriol, complete with the proper disclaimers following the form of: "Greetings, <emotionally-based outburst> LOL there is the truth of still-mind clarity, it is just what is, free of any emotional interpretation... Be well ..". One thing is for almost certain though, he's very very unlikely to offer any sincere conversation on the observation offered. Gee ... wonder why?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 20, 2013 21:02:34 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 20, 2013 21:02:34 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. 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.. Cool. So here is what we started with: "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." Whereas a chair appears to have four legs, made of wood, etc. we know that this is just an appearance. As it actually exists is much more ephemeral, as demonstrated by the tools of science, which effectively amplify our senses. So reality in the case of most things and how they actually exist, according to the definition we started with, is not what it appears at all. However what you are saying seems to be that the appearance isn't as important when regarding what reality is, as the function of the thing we are talking about. So while a chair's actual existence, not its appearance, is ephemeral, its function is what matters in terms of reality. Am I getting your drift there? No.. you are assuming that one observation is superior to another, that the quantum structure of the chair is superior to the experience of its presence and function.. i am saying, that the chair is a totality, not a hierarchy of assigned values.. it is BOTH a cloud of energy behaving like a chair, AND a chair made of a cloud of energy.. When does the pile of parts on scattered on the garage floor become a bicycle? when it's a bicycle it serves a purpose and function of transportation with greater efficiency than walking, and.. when it's scattered parts it doesn't function as a bicycle.. even though you can see the parts of the bicycle plainly, you still refer to the assembled parts as a 'bicycle', rather than spokes, sprockets ,chain, frame, rims, circular rubber thingies, etc.. nothing about the reality of the bicycle changes when it is described as parts, or when the parts are described as clouds of energy, or when we get on the 'thingy' and ride away.. Reality is what's actually happening, the cloud of energy is happening, the table/chair is happening, the bicycle is happening, and they are all united in the experience of existing.. the cloud of energy is no less of an appearance than the table or chair, and it's all actually happening.. the contention between appearances, clouds of energy or form/function, is mind-play.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 20, 2013 21:11:15 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 20, 2013 21:11:15 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hmmmm ... wonder if Tzu' is so attached to his self-image as to restrain from throwing a hissy-fit that I've dared to respond to him in the current conversation about reality? This presents him with a quandary in that both silence and the lack of silence on the issue of the interjection (as opposed to the substance of the interjection itself) can be interpreted as this kind of maintenance of the image. If he does choose the avenue of lack of restraint, and if he follows the pattern of his other replies in this thread, it won't be a half-measure, and it's likely to include a veritable vomitus of vitriol, complete with the proper disclaimers following the form of: "Greetings, <emotionally-based outburst> LOL there is the truth of still-mind clarity, it is just what is, free of any emotional interpretation... Be well ..". One thing is for almost certain though, he's very very unlikely to offer any sincere conversation on the observation offered. Gee ... wonder why? Poor Bill.. the 'model moderator' all worked-up over the illusion that there's a battle to be won, a 'Tzu' to be vanquished.. please, continue the "hissy-fit" you are projecting onto 'Tzu'.. it's quite entertaining, though a sad model for a moderator.. Be well..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 20, 2013 21:17:01 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 20, 2013 21:17:01 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hmmmm ... wonder if Tzu' is so attached to his self-image as to restrain from throwing a hissy-fit that I've dared to respond to him in the current conversation about reality? This presents him with a quandary in that both silence and the lack of silence on the issue of the interjection (as opposed to the substance of the interjection itself) can be interpreted as this kind of maintenance of the image. If he does choose the avenue of lack of restraint, and if he follows the pattern of his other replies in this thread, it won't be a half-measure, and it's likely to include a veritable vomitus of vitriol, complete with the proper disclaimers following the form of: "Greetings, <emotionally-based outburst> LOL there is the truth of still-mind clarity, it is just what is, free of any emotional interpretation... Be well ..". One thing is for almost certain though, he's very very unlikely to offer any sincere conversation on the observation offered. Gee ... wonder why? Poor Bill.. the 'model moderator' all worked-up over the illusion that there's a battle to be won, a 'Tzu' to be vanquished.. please, continue the "hissy-fit" you are projecting onto 'Tzu'.. it's quite entertaining, though a sad model for a moderator.. Be well.. Dude, go back and count the number of emotional cues in each of our sentences in the thread. Do a tally. On yer end, it ain't pretty. Oh! ... and call me Nostradamus.
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 20, 2013 21:26:19 GMT -5
Post by acewall on Nov 20, 2013 21:26:19 GMT -5
Greetings.. Poor Bill.. the 'model moderator' all worked-up over the illusion that there's a battle to be won, a 'Tzu' to be vanquished.. please, continue the "hissy-fit" you are projecting onto 'Tzu'.. it's quite entertaining, though a sad model for a moderator.. Be well.. Dude, go back and count the number of emotional cues in each of our sentences in the thread. Do a tally. On yer end, it ain't pretty. Oh! ... and call me Nostradamus. classic case of unconciousness@work... this kind of self-rightiousness must be kept as its a prime example of how ego thinks it is the all and everything, and everyone else needs them. "Bow down ya bastards;God has arrived!"
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 20, 2013 21:35:09 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Nov 20, 2013 21:35:09 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Poor Bill.. the 'model moderator' all worked-up over the illusion that there's a battle to be won, a 'Tzu' to be vanquished.. please, continue the "hissy-fit" you are projecting onto 'Tzu'.. it's quite entertaining, though a sad model for a moderator.. Be well.. Dude, go back and count the number of emotional cues in each of our sentences in the thread. Do a tally. On yer end, it ain't pretty. Oh! ... and call me Nostradamus. Tsk, tsk.. your hissy's fit to be tied.. by the way, what's with the 'yer' tough-guy talk, it adds no validity to the illusions you are trying to weave.. If you had a shred of dignity, you would let go of this emotional crusade and make some effort to actually contribute to a discussion, rather than your usual character assassination.. Be well, 'Nosty'.. and take it easy, dude.. the stress of all this heavy moderating might be taking its toll on you..
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 20, 2013 21:45:28 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Nov 20, 2013 21:45:28 GMT -5
Greetings.. Dude, go back and count the number of emotional cues in each of our sentences in the thread. Do a tally. On yer end, it ain't pretty. Oh! ... and call me Nostradamus. Tsk, tsk.. your hissy's fit to be tied.. by the way, what's with the 'yer' tough-guy talk, it adds no validity to the illusions you are trying to weave..If you had a shred of dignity, you would let go of this emotional crusade and make some effort to actually contribute to a discussion, rather than your usual character assassination.. Be well, 'Nosty'.. and take it easy, dude.. the stress of all this heavy moderating might be taking its toll on you.. Seriously man, just look at what you write. It's nothing but pollution, pure and simple. In contrast, in my last two, all I'm doin' is pointin' at what ya' write. It's actually yer words that get you all worked up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Senses
Nov 21, 2013 8:31:06 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 8:31:06 GMT -5
Greetings.. Cool. So here is what we started with: "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." Whereas a chair appears to have four legs, made of wood, etc. we know that this is just an appearance. As it actually exists is much more ephemeral, as demonstrated by the tools of science, which effectively amplify our senses. So reality in the case of most things and how they actually exist, according to the definition we started with, is not what it appears at all. However what you are saying seems to be that the appearance isn't as important when regarding what reality is, as the function of the thing we are talking about. So while a chair's actual existence, not its appearance, is ephemeral, its function is what matters in terms of reality. Am I getting your drift there? No.. you are assuming that one observation is superior to another, that the quantum structure of the chair is superior to the experience of its presence and function.. i am saying, that the chair is a totality, not a hierarchy of assigned values.. it is BOTH a cloud of energy behaving like a chair, AND a chair made of a cloud of energy.. When does the pile of parts on scattered on the garage floor become a bicycle? when it's a bicycle it serves a purpose and function of transportation with greater efficiency than walking, and.. when it's scattered parts it doesn't function as a bicycle.. even though you can see the parts of the bicycle plainly, you still refer to the assembled parts as a 'bicycle', rather than spokes, sprockets ,chain, frame, rims, circular rubber thingies, etc.. nothing about the reality of the bicycle changes when it is described as parts, or when the parts are described as clouds of energy, or when we get on the 'thingy' and ride away.. Reality is what's actually happening, the cloud of energy is happening, the table/chair is happening, the bicycle is happening, and they are all united in the experience of existing.. the cloud of energy is no less of an appearance than the table or chair, and it's all actually happening.. the contention between appearances, clouds of energy or form/function, is mind-play.. Be well.. Okay. I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘totality’ as in the chair is a totality. It seems like what you are saying is that a chair is its function, a chair is what it is conventionally -- an object that can be sat on, usually with some legs and a flat thing and a back -- a chair is also an ‘energy cloud’ (not sure what that means really but I’ll just assume you’re pointing to subatomic structure and em fields and strong and weak nuclear forces etc). A chair could also be a microscopic speck if looked at from miles away, right? So none of these different aspects of chair take precedence. So this conversation is about what is Reality. "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." So in that definition “as they actually exist” is what you mean by totality? A totality is all the different possible experiences of that particular thing. And so the clause “rather than as they may appear or might be imagined” is not included in the totality? I’m thinking right now of your bicycle example. There’s a garage with a parts scattered about. PersonA, who lives there, thinks of that assemblage as his bike, just not put together at the moment. It has served him well for many years and it comes with all sorts of memories and feelings. PersonB, a visitor, walks into the garage and sees the mechanical mess and recognizes some pieces as bike parts and doesn’t recognize others. PersonB guesses that this is a mess of bike parts but is not sure. PersonC, also a visitor, walks in and knows nothing of bikes. They just see a scattering of metal parts and doesn’t know if they go together or what. Maybe an inventor lives here? PersonD, a sculptor, walks in and sees many awesome possibilities for creating her latest work. PersonE, a spouse of the bike owner, is annoyed. This pile of crap is taking up the whole place and it looks bad for our visitors. PersonF, a child, quickly moves things around and manages to make a horse-riding stable and track with the parts for imaginary play. PersonG, a bike expert, sees several parts that look good enough to keep but the rest should be junked. PersonH, a thief, takes the rear sprocket. Persons A-H all have different observations. The visual stimuli is very similar but the functions are different. Are you saying that the Reality of the situation is that there are many different functions and experiences and that this is the totality? So maybe reality should be redefined as "Reality is the totality of things as they actually exist, including all possible observations and functions, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." The tricky part here is the ‘appear’ part in the last clause. One persons bike seat may look like a deer skull to another, perhaps. Are both appearances legitimate?
|
|
|
Senses
Nov 21, 2013 8:34:20 GMT -5
Post by acewall on Nov 21, 2013 8:34:20 GMT -5
Greetings.. No.. you are assuming that one observation is superior to another, that the quantum structure of the chair is superior to the experience of its presence and function.. i am saying, that the chair is a totality, not a hierarchy of assigned values.. it is BOTH a cloud of energy behaving like a chair, AND a chair made of a cloud of energy.. When does the pile of parts on scattered on the garage floor become a bicycle? when it's a bicycle it serves a purpose and function of transportation with greater efficiency than walking, and.. when it's scattered parts it doesn't function as a bicycle.. even though you can see the parts of the bicycle plainly, you still refer to the assembled parts as a 'bicycle', rather than spokes, sprockets ,chain, frame, rims, circular rubber thingies, etc.. nothing about the reality of the bicycle changes when it is described as parts, or when the parts are described as clouds of energy, or when we get on the 'thingy' and ride away.. Reality is what's actually happening, the cloud of energy is happening, the table/chair is happening, the bicycle is happening, and they are all united in the experience of existing.. the cloud of energy is no less of an appearance than the table or chair, and it's all actually happening.. the contention between appearances, clouds of energy or form/function, is mind-play.. Be well.. Okay. I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘totality’ as in the chair is a totality. It seems like what you are saying is that a chair is its function, a chair is what it is conventionally -- an object that can be sat on, usually with some legs and a flat thing and a back -- a chair is also an ‘energy cloud’ (not sure what that means really but I’ll just assume you’re pointing to subatomic structure and em fields and strong and weak nuclear forces etc). A chair could also be a microscopic speck if looked at from miles away, right? So none of these different aspects of chair take precedence. So this conversation is about what is Reality. "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." So in that definition “as they actually exist” is what you mean by totality? A totality is all the different possible experiences of that particular thing. And so the clause “rather than as they may appear or might be imagined” is not included in the totality? I’m thinking right now of your bicycle example. There’s a garage with a parts scattered about. PersonA, who lives there, thinks of that assemblage as his bike, just not put together at the moment. It has served him well for many years and it comes with all sorts of memories and feelings. PersonB, a visitor, walks into the garage and sees the mechanical mess and recognizes some pieces as bike parts and doesn’t recognize others. PersonB guesses that this is a mess of bike parts but is not sure. PersonC, also a visitor, walks in and knows nothing of bikes. They just see a scattering of metal parts and doesn’t know if they go together or what. Maybe an inventor lives here? PersonD, a sculptor, walks in and sees many awesome possibilities for creating her latest work. PersonE, a spouse of the bike owner, is annoyed. This pile of crap is taking up the whole place and it looks bad for our visitors. PersonF, a child, quickly moves things around and manages to make a horse-riding stable and track with the parts for imaginary play. PersonG, a bike expert, sees several parts that look good enough to keep but the rest should be junked. PersonH, a thief, takes the rear sprocket. Persons A-H all have different observations. The visual stimuli is very similar but the functions are different. Are you saying that the Reality of the situation is that there are many different functions and experiences and that this is the totality? So maybe reality should be redefined as "Reality is the totality of things as they actually exist, including all possible observations and functions, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." The tricky part here is the ‘appear’ part in the last clause. One persons bike seat may look like a deer skull to another, perhaps. Are both appearances legitimate? amazing, when faxes were the thingpeople would fax fuk themselves all day long!
|
|