|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 2:56:52 GMT -5
I'm asking you for the link please! You've stated clearly and on numerous occasions that you don't read links provided to you. Are you being selective about which links you're willing to read? Well yeah, it's pretty obvious that peeps don't like to read links that demonstrate them morphing and self-contradicting and blatantly misstating what other peeps wrote.  ... also doesn't help if they undermine strong statements of subjective opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 3:05:06 GMT -5
Looks like brown bear is only reading one side of the story.  Yeah, he's very definitely a political animal.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 3:15:16 GMT -5
Thanks for answering. I find what you have to say interesting. There a lot of bouncing balls in my life these days so, when I read his posts and the links, I can sense that Laffy's skills as a programmer enable that neural network to keep an eye on several bouncing balls in incredible detail. There's a wee bit of envy there, considering the number of international-multicultural students/teachers/admin I need to interact with daily, while being focused on learning objectives.  What's sticky about all this are the peeps 'cause they are sooooooo much more interesting than the crystalline formations of mind that express in code. When I was young it was much easier to get absorbed in the process of designing/writing/testing. This is a cliche that I remember an old Engineer cluing a senior lecture hall into years ago. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 3:15:25 GMT -5
At least I can tell you he is wasting his time with me. I never click on the links but then I feel slightly sorry for him for all the work he's put in rummaging through the archives. Oh well! The links aren't only for your consumption. They're for anyone else reading along that might have an interest in the differential between your own arrogant expressions of positioning yourself as teacher, on one hand, and the obviously disordered mental state they demonstrate, on the other. And then he likes that you've said that to him? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 3:16:41 GMT -5
If I were someone as rigorously logical and argumentative as you appear to be, I would appreciate someone taking the time to point out certain things to see if they were indeed indicative of something erroneous. Perhaps, at that point, with a little openness and honesty, something could then be let go of or seen in greater clarity. I don't like dredging up the past, even just two minutes ago. For me, what was said and done has no bearing on now and it actually requires a level of effort to go there. If you'll notice, I usually only engage you on the topic of the past after you've brought it up first. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 3:17:16 GMT -5
What's the difference between something experienced as an illusion and something experienced that is not an illusion? How could I tell them apart? All experience that includes separation is illusion. Would seeing the moon as 'out there', be an illusion then? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 3:19:48 GMT -5
Appearance of other individuals happens according to my individual, So that tells me that they are working for me. This can happen at two condition 1) God has fallen into his own dream(but in this case, I must be the only individual who is real) 2) A mysterious force is doing this Job for it's own purpose. If other individuals are real and if mysterious force is absent, then their aspect of consciousness try as possible as it can to flourish their life. It would never work for me. Ok on the two conditions I'm pretty sure my question was premised on the possibility of more than one condition, the possibility of you (as appearance) working for them and vice versa. That's why I didn't get your answer.
As far as the mysterious force, I would say there are unconscious forces and there is consciousness, and that consciousness doesn't have a purpose, which makes the job a lot less complicated.
f#(&'n-a right it does. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 3:21:36 GMT -5
That's everything, maybe the most pertinent question ever asked here. Everything experienced is in a sense an illusion. Assuming bodies and brains are ~real~, once a sensation enters a body, it is coded (the impression is ~turned into~ chemical and electrical coded information), meaning, it is now at least once removed from the ~real~ world. The brain/consciousness must then interpret the coded signals. So the question becomes, does the coded signal refer to some-thing illusory or something actually existing. We do this hundreds of times every day, we have to decided what's ~real~ and what's not-real. And on the spiritual journey things get much messier.... Exactly right. To tie that in with the current discussion, regardless of whether the world is real or not, anything which changes or appears and disappears can be regarded as an illusion. That knowledge forces some to look for what is unchanging. Only that is real. The resolution that all is real including world and unchanging awareness, in other words, it is all nothing other than myself, happens on the third mountain. ::: contains confusion ::: |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 3:21:50 GMT -5
Ok on the two conditions I'm pretty sure my question was premised on the possibility of more than one condition, the possibility of you (as appearance) working for them and vice versa. That's why I didn't get your answer.
As far as the mysterious force, I would say there are unconscious forces and there is consciousness, and that consciousness doesn't have a purpose, which makes the job a lot less complicated.
Okay, let's leave this topic. Consider this topic as unimportant. Dude, when did you find the time for charm school??  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 3:23:52 GMT -5
No, Consciousness is not a General delegating responsibility to his subordinates. Stop that.  How do you know? Because hierachy is an illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 3:28:32 GMT -5
What's the difference between something experienced as an illusion and something experienced that is not an illusion? How could I tell them apart? That's everything, maybe the most pertinent question ever asked here. Everything experienced is in a sense an illusion. Assuming bodies and brains are ~real~, once a sensation enters a body, it is coded (the impression is ~turned into~ chemical and electrical coded information), meaning, it is now at least once removed from the ~real~ world. The brain/consciousness must then interpret the coded signals. So the question becomes, does the coded signal refer to some-thing illusory or something actually existing. We do this hundreds of times every day, we have to decided what's ~real~ and what's not-real. And on the spiritual journey things get much messier.... Those questions have answers in the form of non-conceptual gnosis, but finding them definitely involves suspending any conception of yourself in mechanistic terms. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 3:29:11 GMT -5
Okay, let's leave this topic. Consider this topic as unimportant. Dude, when did you find the time for charm school?? Charm school? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 3:29:27 GMT -5
Well, you're still replying, but at this point it's for the sole purpose of picture painting. This is your pattern: when you lose a debate you inevitably resort to the logical fallacy of ad-hominem to cover your tracks. (yes, I'm conscious of my own picture painting there, it's fire-with-fire). The purpose of the links is to demonstrate glaring inconsistencies and literal illusions that you insist are relative actualities. I'm quite calm when generating them.  I can believe there is a strangely soothing sense that comes with the hyper linking, maybe you suppress it for days and then it bursts out in a frenzy of lawyering. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 3:30:47 GMT -5
I don't like dredging up the past, even just two minutes ago. For me, what was said and done has no bearing on now and it actually requires a level of effort to go there. If you'll notice, I usually only engage you on the topic of the past after you've brought it up first. If he's not looking in the past then he's not likely to notice that. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 3:31:40 GMT -5
I have to admit that what I'm about to write doesn't really source from any sort of expression of love that I want to be involved in ... but what you've linked to is of course a prime example of why he doesn't like to dwell in the past: because it reveals too many inconsistencies. 
|
|
... also doesn't help if they undermine strong statements of subjective opinion. 
