Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 9:22:57 GMT -5
You are asking a question which you have already known. Don't you know I live in India? "heh heh I thought you lived on your mind Moon heh heh" I don't understand what he is trying to prove? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 9:23:38 GMT -5
Well that's one way for you to get the last word is to make it a nonsensical one.  What I said there was quite clear. But it's based on an unsubstantiated claim. I've demonstrated your morphing with links. You're just imagining mine.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 9:28:50 GMT -5
"heh heh I thought you lived on your mind Moon heh heh" I don't understand what he is trying to prove? He's using your idea of appearances in consciousness to get you to write certain statements. What he's trying to prove with those statements is that you deny that those appearances appear relative to you in the simple terms of "I see the bus with my eyes. I live in a house on planet Earth" etc.. He's projecting existential confusion onto you. What's at the root of it is an attachment to a personal mind/body-centric identity. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 9:30:25 GMT -5
Yes I know that, for me it is a contextually true statement. Is it for you? If it helps I can ask you a question that I don't know about you....is it contextually true or false that Gopal likes sugar in his tea? Yes. Great! (I assume 'yes' means true). I saw you ask below what I am trying to prove. What I am simply showing is that 'truth' is not confined to just one context i.e 'truth' doesn't just apply to the idea of Consciousness and appearances. It applies to a billion different things. It's true that Gopal lives in India, has brown hair, wears glasses, has a Mum and Dad. It's also true that you don't close your eyes when you cross the street because it is dangerous to do so. It's also true that your brain, eyes (and body in general) work together to produce an image that you see. Are any of those things I have stated as true, a problem for you? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 9:31:34 GMT -5
What I said there was quite clear. But it's based on an unsubstantiated claim. I've demonstrated your morphing with links. You're just imagining mine. It's quite apparent what your agenda is and why you are morphing. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 9:32:51 GMT -5
But it's based on an unsubstantiated claim. I've demonstrated your morphing with links. You're just imagining mine. It's quite apparent what your agenda is and why you are morphing. But you can't name a specific instance of this imagined morphing.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 9:34:27 GMT -5
I don't understand what he is trying to prove? He's using your idea of appearances in consciousness to get you to write certain statements. What he's trying to prove with those statements is that you deny that those appearances appear relative to you in the simple terms of "I see the bus with my eyes. I live in a house on planet Earth" etc.. He's projecting existential confusion onto you. What's at the root of it is an attachment to a personal mind/body-centric identity. Ignore this bullshit gopal, I'm not trying to prove that you deny something, I'm trying to show you that the idea of 'truth' doesn't just apply to a single context (Consciousness-appearances). I'm trying to show you that you know things to be true outside of that context. Laughter thinks I'm trying to catch you out, it's the opposite, I'm trying to show you what you already know but seem to have been reticent about saying. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 9:35:54 GMT -5
It's quite apparent what your agenda is and why you are morphing. But you can't name a specific instance of this imagined morphing. Because I've got almost zero interest in trying to show you. It's a dull litigious conversation, it almost always is when I talk to you. The reason I am talking to you now is because I'm sort of hanging around talking to gopal in a conversation that I actually would like to have. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 9:36:26 GMT -5
He's using your idea of appearances in consciousness to get you to write certain statements. What he's trying to prove with those statements is that you deny that those appearances appear relative to you in the simple terms of "I see the bus with my eyes. I live in a house on planet Earth" etc.. He's projecting existential confusion onto you. What's at the root of it is an attachment to a personal mind/body-centric identity. Ignore this bullnuts gopal, I'm not trying to prove that you deny something, I'm trying to show you that the idea of 'truth' doesn't just apply to a single context (Consciousness-appearances). I'm trying to show you that you know things to be true outside of that context. Laughter thinks I'm trying to catch you out, it's the opposite, I'm trying to show you what you already know but seem to have been reticent about saying. "heh heh you're a really great friend! heh heh" |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 9:38:31 GMT -5
Ignore this bullnuts gopal, I'm not trying to prove that you deny something, I'm trying to show you that the idea of 'truth' doesn't just apply to a single context (Consciousness-appearances). I'm trying to show you that you know things to be true outside of that context. Laughter thinks I'm trying to catch you out, it's the opposite, I'm trying to show you what you already know but seem to have been reticent about saying. "heh heh you're a really great friend! heh heh" I don't know about a great friend, but I consider him a friend enough that I persevere. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2016 9:38:59 GMT -5
But you can't name a specific instance of this imagined morphing. Because I've got almost zero interest in trying to show you. It's a dull litigious conversation, it almost always is when I talk to you. The reason I am talking to you now is because I'm sort of hanging around talking to gopal in a conversation that I actually would like to have. Now you're sliding from the unsubstantiated claim of my alleged (and non-existent) morphing into a justification for making the unsubstantiated claim. Aces.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 9:41:45 GMT -5
Because I've got almost zero interest in trying to show you. It's a dull litigious conversation, it almost always is when I talk to you. The reason I am talking to you now is because I'm sort of hanging around talking to gopal in a conversation that I actually would like to have. Now you're sliding from the unsubstantiated claim of my alleged (and non-existent) morphing into a justification for making the unsubstantiated claim. Aces. yeah I got no interest in trying to prove something to you, it would be futile, and not because I don't think you endlessly morph conversations. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 9:54:13 GMT -5
I haven't seen him trying to refute it so much as trap you into acknowledging his view as equally valid. (maybe I missed something) He has acknowledged that everything is an appearance in consciousness, he just doesn't care. He is not understand what's the meaning of everything is appearing, I am very serious. He is asking If I am appearing, then animals are appearing as well? He is asking, If brain is appearing or eye is appearing, then leg is also appearing? Did you see the poor level of his understanding? Andrew clearly is not understanding the core of what we have been talking about. Of course he understands the idea of everything being an appearance in consciousness. Andrew is annoying but not stupid. Hehe He's just trying to get you to acknowledge a different context, so acknowledge it already! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 18, 2016 9:57:34 GMT -5
He is not understand what's the meaning of everything is appearing, I am very serious. He is asking If I am appearing, then animals are appearing as well? He is asking, If brain is appearing or eye is appearing, then leg is also appearing? Did you see the poor level of his understanding? Andrew clearly is not understanding the core of what we have been talking about. Of course he understands the idea of everything being an appearance in consciousness. Andrew is annoying but not stupid. Hehe He's just trying to get you to acknowledge a different context, so acknowledge it already! Thank you!  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 18, 2016 10:00:00 GMT -5
''not an illusion''....''as it seems''. Real means if someone punches you really hard in the face, there is blood and a broken nose. Simple. And tomorrow and for a week, black and blue and pain. So 'real' means an experience of something physical happening or believable happening or scientifically verifiable happening or what? |
|
