|
Post by Reefs on Jan 20, 2013 21:34:16 GMT -5
Greetings.. The act of telling others to stop thinking and just be while producing one wall of text after another, in short: Got it? Oh, like your aggressive and abusive attitude.. brutish 'keyboard kommandos' are amusing, but of no use to anyone interested in understanding their own existence.. your 'act' is detrimental to sincere seekers, got it? Be well.. I've never seen a sincere one complain about style. But I've seen plenty of grumpy ones do that.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 20, 2013 21:42:20 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Oh, like your aggressive and abusive attitude.. brutish 'keyboard kommandos' are amusing, but of no use to anyone interested in understanding their own existence.. your 'act' is detrimental to sincere seekers, got it? Be well.. I've never seen a sincere one complain about style. But I've seen plenty of grumpy ones do that. If denial serves your purpose, so be it.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jan 21, 2013 14:49:04 GMT -5
Greetings.. Why not just drop the act? I cannot stop your imagination, but 'you' can.. just suspend the thinking processes, see clearly.. then, you will see the absurdity of your request, there is no act to stop.. Be well.. Right.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2013 12:43:37 GMT -5
I have never met enigma before, though i think i have some alternative views of paradox than the ones i have read here. My perspective on paradox is that there is really only one worth noticing and discussing. It can be expressed in a myriad of ways, and it is worth noticing and discussing because it is an expression of a limit, a demarcation, past which mind can't and, and I speculate, is likely to ever go. The paradox puts the mind on notice of what the mind isn't. This fits many definitions of the word "mind" ... don't know if it can apply to any and all though. Myviews have to do with how does the individual determine something is a paraodox, and the subsequent actions of the individual once they are convinced either way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2013 15:11:34 GMT -5
What a hell it would be if I said things about peeps in hopes that they would change their behavior. I had a friend who was living in their own hell, brought on by their own inner behavior. I spoke to him from a position of compassion because of the suffering he endured from his condition, in the hopes he would change himself, for his benefit, not mine. He listened, pondered, explored, understood, changed, and has since thanked me for helping him out of his hell. From my experiences enigma, i simply do not rez with your mindset and i have no intentions of disrupting your attachment to it. Your mindset does not bother me, you appear to me to be content in it so i see no need to dispute it's value to you. 1)Well i am not an intellectual so i wouldn't know if it's good or bad for them. If i judged this claim you make as important to me i suppose i would enquire from a decent number of intellectuals to see if it is good or bad to them. As an avid explorer, verifing claims is part of the process, but as you can imagine, there are billions of claims that an individual could check. I have to prioritize for the sake of my own wellbeing and your claim about intellectuals is far down on the list considering i am not an intellectual and i do not personally know any or what they have to do with you or me in the context of our discussion. I speculate it must have some significance to you that you felt to mention it but i am simply not interested in finding this out because to me it just seems totally irrelevant to the topic we are discussing.
2)I see no productive reason to repeat your claim without offering specific evidence after i have asked for it. I speculate you will see this differently than me, but it appears to me you have just expressed that your thoughts and subsequent speech about spitting comes from your state of confusion.
I asked for specific evidence of spitting, you have not offered it. All you have done thus far is define what you mean by spitting, and have repeated your claim you se me doing so. I speculate i am wasting our time asking you to offer specific evidence for me to examine. 1) If you want to evaluate yourself and conclude your creation of the label of spitting was derived from a value judgement and not discernment, go right ahead, what has that got to do with me.
2) I don't see how you pointing out you have concluded you used value judgement and not discerment to create the term 'spitting' has anything to do with why i have chosen to participate in this forum.
So far the only thing that is going on, within the confines of the discussion about spitting, is you expressing you see i am spitting. There has been no advancement in exploration because all you have done so far is repeat your statement you see me spitting, introduced an unknown number of unknown intellectuals and expressed you are in a state of confusion when you came to your spitting conclusion. Whereas i have asked for evidence to explore, to which you still haven't.
All you have done thus far is declare you see i am spitting in my posts. Well, i cannot dispute what you see, i am not you, i cannot see through your eyes. If you see spitting, then you see spitting. What has that got to do with me. More importantly, what has that got to do with you now you have expressed...
..unless you want hell to increase and you don't seem to me to be a person who desires this. What does seem to me, is you have no interest in the spitting you see me doing, that it doesn't bother you if you see me spitting or not.
I like this forum, it has some interesting individuals in it, though i am at a disadvantage in that i find everyone interesting and worthy to spend time with. I rez with some and we become friends, and some i don't rez with and we keep our distance, but it's usually the other who keeps their distance from me because imma bit of a loony. But i take solace in the phrase, "There's a method to his madness." And the funny thing is, i really was insane back in the day. Not your straightjacket, keep him permanently medicated type of insane, but a decent amount of insane nonetheless. Am i proud of my former insanity, nay, i am proud of the fact i found my way out.Um, if i may offer an alternative to your statement. It's not that you saw me doing XYZ, but you saw what you think i was doing in my mindtank, you saw your image of me, and i am not another's image of me. You have a list of possible motivations in your mindtank, you have no way to know if i have a list in mine or if i did, that it's the same as yours. That you projected/superimposed your thinking process onto your image of me you have in your mindtank, thus concluding, "Oh i know exactly what M-G is thinking and what his motives are, i know all about M-G" Dude, you have encountered me for what, an hour tops, while i have encountered myself for 25 years, and you think you know internal stuff about me. Here's a prime example...One of the very first things i notice about you, about people, not all, but it's a common ailment amongst the human species. The very first thing i notice about you is you think what you see is the truth, as evidenced by your word usage. So here am i doing the exact thing you think i haven't even stumbled upon. Yeah, you got me all figured out. Must have been from that hour of intense observation.
Your statement even offers evidence of the perception glitch of the human species. You see it's true because you see it's true. aka truth is a label an individual assigns to whatever they want. The thing doesn't even have to be true, it only has to be seen as true, to be seen as true. Hence so many religions, 33,000+ versions of christianity and the plethora of new age theories and beliefs regarding life the universe and everything.
Bottom line for me is, believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't adversely affect my life. For me, i stand on whatever makes sense, what works and what produces a positive result for myself and whomever may be affected via connection to me. As i move through life, exploring, i change what needs to be changed and i leave truth chasing to others.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2013 15:23:12 GMT -5
My perspective on paradox is that there is really only one worth noticing and discussing. It can be expressed in a myriad of ways, and it is worth noticing and discussing because it is an expression of a limit, a demarcation, past which mind can't and, and I speculate, is likely to ever go.
The paradox puts the mind on notice of what the mind isn't. This fits many definitions of the word "mind" ... don't know if it can apply to any and all though. Myviews have to do with how does the individual determine something is a paraodox, and the subsequent actions of the individual once they are convinced either way. A paradox emerges when the individual mind holds at least two mutually exclusive ideas to be true at the same time. From there, they can either keep thinking about these ideas, trying to find a resolution between or the negation of one of them or not. Here's one for you: infinity.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jan 22, 2013 15:34:26 GMT -5
Myviews have to do with how does the individual determine something is a paraodox, and the subsequent actions of the individual once they are convinced either way. A paradox emerges when the individual mind holds at least two mutually exclusive ideas to be true at the same time. From there, they can either keep thinking about these ideas, trying to find a resolution between or the negation of one of them or not. Here's one for you: infinity. What is paradoxical about the word "infinity"? EDIT: Perhaps we can move the discussion of this particular paradox into its own thread. I have a purpose with engaging this if you will permit me. I will show how every conception of infinite is essentially reduced to a finitely described algorithm or a finite sense/qualia with respect to the structure of a thought in our imagination.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2013 16:02:53 GMT -5
A paradox emerges when the individual mind holds at least two mutually exclusive ideas to be true at the same time. From there, they can either keep thinking about these ideas, trying to find a resolution between or the negation of one of them or not. Here's one for you: infinity. 1) Please clarify, where does the paradox emerge from? I conclude paradox is a thought construct of the individual, but you may have another view.
2) According to my understanding(stated above), when a person says they see a paradox, of something separate from them, an external situation in reality, this is an incorrect statement as paradox is merely an internal label assigned by a person who doesn't understand what they are observing or the person who has described something and it appears paradoxic to the other is due to the desciber has made a mistake in their description, thus their desciption does not add up, hence it's labeled paradox.
Either way, paradoxes are non existant outside of an individual's mind. There is no determining something is paradoxical, but merely a label is assigned to something that either actually doesn't add up, or the observer doesn't fully understand, and the label is attached in order to help with personal navigation.
3) Please offer another word as i don't view 'infinity' as paradoxic. I view 'infinity' as currently unprovable, it's current status to me is, theory. I'm for using enigma's variation of the classic, "I always lie when i speak", "Nothing is ultimately true.", but please use whatever you like.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jan 22, 2013 18:15:07 GMT -5
A paradox emerges when the individual mind holds at least two mutually exclusive ideas to be true at the same time. From there, they can either keep thinking about these ideas, trying to find a resolution between or the negation of one of them or not. Here's one for you: infinity. 1) Please clarify, where does the paradox emerge from? I conclude paradox is a thought construct of the individual, but you may have another view.
2) According to my understanding(stated above), when a person says they see a paradox, of something separate from them, an external situation in reality, this is an incorrect statement as paradox is merely an internal label assigned by a person who doesn't understand what they are observing or the person who has described something and it appears paradoxic to the other is due to the desciber has made a mistake in their description, thus their desciption does not add up, hence it's labeled paradox.
Either way, paradoxes are non existant outside of an individual's mind. There is no determining something is paradoxical, but merely a label is assigned to something that either actually doesn't add up, or the observer doesn't fully understand, and the label is attached in order to help with personal navigation.
3) Please offer another word as i don't view 'infinity' as paradoxic. I view 'infinity' as currently unprovable, it's current status to me is, theory. I'm for using enigma's variation of the classic, "I always lie when i speak", "Nothing is ultimately true.", but please use whatever you like.Is "I see the color red" a lie when it is uttered in the presence of the visual experience of red?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2013 19:28:02 GMT -5
Is "I see the color red" a lie when it is uttered in the presence of the visual experience of red? Checkin' first, you askin' me or laughter? It's not quite clear to me as i am still adapting to the different layout of ST.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jan 22, 2013 19:41:43 GMT -5
Is "I see the color red" a lie when it is uttered in the presence of the visual experience of red? Checkin' first, you askin' me or laughter? It's not quite clear to me as i am still adapting to the different layout of ST.I quoted you, and within the quote of you there was a quote of laughter. (the names of owners of the quotes sit outside and on top of the quote.) You said that you ascribe to the idea that "I always lie when I speak" and I am wanting clarification as to what you mean. I gave an example of a sentence and a context of interpretation for the sentence such that in my mind the sentence evaluates to true when spoken in the context and is not a lie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2013 3:24:52 GMT -5
Checkin' first, you askin' me or laughter? It's not quite clear to me as i am still adapting to the different layout of ST. I quoted you, and within the quote of you there was a quote of laughter. (the names of owners of the quotes sit outside and on top of the quote.) Ahh, now i see, tnx. I'm used to vBulletin quote function that only quotes one person.I am unclear as to what you mean by ascribe to the idea, as all i have done is cite an example of a paradox, "I always lie when i speak" I consider i expressed myself clear enough to laughter, but no probs, i will have another go.
Laughter used "infinity" as an example of paradox. I expressed that i don't see that 'inifinity' fits in that category one bit and asked if he would use another one. I also offered the one i would like to use, Enigma's, "Nothing is ultimately true", which i regard as similar to the classic "I always lie when i speak."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 23, 2013 8:25:13 GMT -5
A paradox emerges when the individual mind holds at least two mutually exclusive ideas to be true at the same time. From there, they can either keep thinking about these ideas, trying to find a resolution between or the negation of one of them or not. Here's one for you: infinity. What is paradoxical about the word "infinity"?
EDIT: Perhaps we can move the discussion of this particular paradox into its own thread. I have a purpose with engaging this if you will permit me. I will show how every conception of infinite is essentially reduced to a finitely described algorithm or a finite sense/qualia with respect to the structure of a thought in our imagination. Topo', hey yes, if it weren't a free country I would of course invite you to start a new thread if you'd like, it goes without saying that you have my trust sir and I've yet to have a disagreement with you yet that didn't result in lower-entropy to the words. In direct and simple answer, the mind makes a paradox of the word by noting that something that is limited refers to something that's unlimited. Truth A is: infinity is unlimited Truth B is: infinity is limited I could of course get a bit more explicit with an expression of the underlying boolean algebra but that would be like quoting Sun Tzu to Stormin' Norman. What I will go on to point out, however, is that the obvious answer to this based in applying a level of indirection to "Truth A" doesn't break the paradox. The demonstration of this might seem reductive but I believe that it will hold up. The same reasoning can be applied to any arbitrary symbol, it's just alot eaiser to point this out about the word or symbol for infinity. When I was looking for other expressions of the "common", "core" paradox that the mind discovers in metaphysical exploration a few years back I stumbled on this, and the author explains it quite well. If someone appears to express interest in the notion of paradox I find it better to engage with "infinity" rather than "non-duality" or "no thought is true", both which of course contain the seeds of paradox within them -- and my intuition, which I further intuit can be backed by mind, indicates it is a common paradox ... better to use infinity because it usually isn't mistaken for anything other than a secular notion. On the other hand ( ;D), here are a few inspirational fragments that seem to me to be based on the recognition of what infinity points toward: The mother of nature. It has no name, But I call it "the Way"; It has no limit, but I call it "limitless". -- Lao Tzu' 'Whence does the 'I' arise?' Seek this within. The 'I' then vanishes. This is the pursuit of wisdom.
Where the 'I' vanished, there appears an 'I-I' by itself. This is the infinite.''And just for good measure, I'lll throw in this link to Enigma's run at the infinity paradox, along with my retort.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 23, 2013 8:44:49 GMT -5
A paradox emerges when the individual mind holds at least two mutually exclusive ideas to be true at the same time. From there, they can either keep thinking about these ideas, trying to find a resolution between or the negation of one of them or not. Here's one for you: infinity. 1) Please clarify, where does the paradox emerge from? I conclude paradox is a thought construct of the individual, but you may have another view.
2) According to my understanding(stated above), when a person says they see a paradox, of something separate from them, an external situation in reality, this is an incorrect statement as paradox is merely an internal label assigned by a person who doesn't understand what they are observing or the person who has described something and it appears paradoxic to the other is due to the desciber has made a mistake in their description, thus their desciption does not add up, hence it's labeled paradox.
Either way, paradoxes are non existant outside of an individual's mind. There is no determining something is paradoxical, but merely a label is assigned to something that either actually doesn't add up, or the observer doesn't fully understand, and the label is attached in order to help with personal navigation.
3) Please offer another word as i don't view 'infinity' as paradoxic. I view 'infinity' as currently unprovable, it's current status to me is, theory. I'm for using enigma's variation of the classic, "I always lie when i speak", "Nothing is ultimately true.", but please use whatever you like.Please see my reply to topo' w/r/t "inifinity". You and Enigma share this view: he refers to all paradox as "mental confusion" and has the urge to stamp it all out. I don't see this as wrong, but in addition, I see paradox as a useful pointer toward the limits of the rational, reasoning mind. Just because a paradox isn't thought of doesn't mean it can't be thought of, and something that can be reasoned away isn't a paradox. "infinity" and the liar's paradox are linked by way of the concept of recursion: the only limits to the level of nesting on a recursive function call are physical -- in a strict and narrow sense you are correct in dismissing infinity as conjecture in the physical sense: looking inward, we find the Plank Length, and we seem to be limited looking outward by the age of the Universe and the speed of light. I cede this point to you on only a narrow and technical basis, because infinity is actually used in various fields of engineering on a daily basis as a practical tool in applied mathematics. The same is true of the mathematical expression of the liars paradox: √-1, aka, i. Without i the lights don't come on, and this is a delicious little irony because it is conjectured by some deep thinkers that i is a useful model for how the whole loses itself in an apparent piece of itself. Interesting to follow those deep thinkers but they seem, in turn, to get lost in what I refer to as the "spiritual speculation".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2013 8:47:17 GMT -5
I hope no one asks me to show them the ropes. I have no idea where they are. Maybe I could pull some strings and find out.
Who decides when the applause should die down? It seems like it's a group decision, everyone begins to say to themselves at the same time, "Well, okay, that's enough of that."
Dusting is a good example of the futility of trying to put things right. As soon as you dust, the fact of your next dusting has already been established. - George Carlin
|
|