Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 22:07:42 GMT -5
I don't think it is.  Calming down is a body language thing. If the one offering the suggestion to calm down can extend their left hand into the moment, the suggestion can then be felt and respect can flood the air. Instigating a calming down in both tolder and toldee. Good point. There is a case where the meme isn't true. Utilising hypnosis, I was able to advise ppl to calm-down without difficulty, during psychotherapy events. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 21, 2016 22:18:14 GMT -5
Isn't that a loaded question? No, a loaded question assumes guilt within the question. I'm asking you if it's true. Loaded question is one that contains assumption or is charged with an implication. I guess it was more of a leading question, though it did seem to assume I missed the point. The other thing is, if missing your point implies 'just like Andy', what does it mean in this social clime to be associated as 'like Andy'? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 22:36:41 GMT -5
You mean he won't admit he's wrong? Has it occurred to you maybe he doesn't think he is? I'm pretty sure he has absolutely no conception he is wrong. What I mean to say is if here were Superman and a Kryptonite bullet were heading toward his head, he wouldn't step aside. Likewise, no reason why supergopal should back down. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 22:43:49 GMT -5
You're taking advantage of Gopal's inability to articulate precisely in English. He's not saying brains don't appear. To him, an appearance having sensory organs implies those organs are used by the person to sense. Oh, it doesn't matter what gopal meant. So much. Really. It's not seems to, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 22:49:27 GMT -5
::sigh:: you often avoid the technical questions. You mean Dooooofus Guy is a technician? This is outrageous. He didn't mention that on his job application.   |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 22:53:18 GMT -5
Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! He is punching holes in your conceptual Consciousness self-identity and all you can say is "Please".... I do understand why you don't want to answer the question. Pu-leeeeese.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2016 22:56:22 GMT -5
Agree. ......Alpha Dog has been on my movie list a long time, just watched it yesterday. Your post is a pretty good description of it. I'll have to check it out. I would guess you would not be interested.....check out throughly. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 22:59:40 GMT -5
I can't know whether others are real or figment, that's right. But when you say '(actually seeing that nothing really can be known for certain)', you are bringing two context, one in which moon is mere appearance, another one is moon is received from outside, So you can't know which one is true, So you are saying that it can't be known for certain,right? But the problem here is, the second context is born out of speculation, that means outer is moon is speculated from inner moon. So there is no two context in which as you say we can't know for certain. There is only one context. See?, everybody? Gopal has only one context. He seems to be saying that the larger context Donald Trumps the smaller one. Would you say that's what he's trying to say? Aren't you taking advantage of his inability to articulate it precisely? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 23:06:26 GMT -5
I won't try to sort all that out (some right some wrong). They are not innocent in any sense. (I don't know if you got to my metaphysics yet). There is no excuse for their behavior. The Whole didn't force them into bad decisions, there is such a thing as individual responsibility. Yes, individual responsibility is a useful idea, but there is also the recognition that their context was such that there wasn't any other choice available. In the case of Hitler, it is really quite obvious that he thought he was doing the right thing. I take individual responsibility by recognizing my role in creating these expressions, so I heal the Hitler and Charles within me.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2016 23:06:49 GMT -5
See?, everybody? Gopal has only one context. He seems to be saying that the larger context Donald Trumps the smaller one. Would you say that's what he's trying to say? Aren't you taking advantage of his inability to articulate it precisely? No. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 23:08:06 GMT -5
...conversations heard at the torch lighting party. If God is all powerful we gotta give him some credit for Charlie Manson, don't we? Oh no, that was all Satan. Yea that's the ticket. One solution to this conundrum is to just throw that whole model out. (My preferred solution.) All moral questions are clearly conceptual, eh? So right there you are in dual land. Leave those poor nondualists out of it. On acting morally -- aka appropriately -- a 'nondualist' just acts. Unfettered by conceptually created clumsiness. There isn't a Satan, that's nonsense too. Neither is God (directly) to blame for Charlie. Yes, SOCI formed a universe where "evil" would be possible, and even inevitable. In creating such a world God necessarily had to limit his power, within that world. The consequences of forming beings with the ability to choose, in the end nasty choices would be made and nasty results world occur. Our world today is a result of millions of nasty decisions. SOCI can know the future? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 23:11:11 GMT -5
When Gopal talks about appearances he doesn't mean it the way you do: 'the way things appear to us as we conceptualize our experience'. It means appearances are exactly that; appearances only, with no physical form, no objective existence. It's not necessary to explain that appearances don't exist. The fact that you only know how a rock appears to you doesn't mean it's not actual, but it is not actual nonetheless. Yes, I know we don't mean it in the same way. I'm saying he can't know that (and neither can you). Just because we can't see the physical in any way other than subjectively doesn't prove it's not there in some way.Right, but it's not there nevertheless. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 23:16:14 GMT -5
So 'real' means an experience of something physical happening or believable happening or scientifically verifiable happening or what? 'Real' can merely mean there is a correspondence between an outer occurrence/event and an inner experience/sensations. Imaginary/illusory would mean there-is-no outward evidence for an inner experience. So it CAN mean a correspondence, but maybe not? Another iteration or two and you're going to prove my point about the term 'real'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 23:20:56 GMT -5
So 'real' means an experience of something physical happening or believable happening or scientifically verifiable happening or what? 'Real' can merely mean there is a correspondence between an outer occurrence/event and an inner experience/sensations. Imaginary/illusory would mean there-is-no outward evidence for an inner experience. So if one experiences the evidence of an oasis in the distance, it can't ever actually be a mirage? If one experiences the evidence of a snake in the road, it can never actually be a rope, and therefore imaginary/illusory? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2016 23:23:00 GMT -5
You're describing appearances, deriving conclusions about appearances, applying logic to appearances, thinking about appearances. All of that appears along with the other appearances. But if Consciousness-only-exists, please give me (or speculate) why Consciousness is doing all this? If it is Consciousness-only, it's a Twilight Zone episode. I can't see any reason for Consciousness to ~make~ such a world as we live in. The question is misconceived. |
|
