|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 8, 2018 0:15:37 GMT -5
But again, I think that's the precise point at which contexts are being mixed. When we say a rock isn't conscious, intelligent, alive....we mean it in the same way that we mean an AI bot isn't conscious, intelligent, alive. It's a valid distinction to make, and a valid conversation. But the broader context is that all things have a consciousness, intelligence, aliveness....whether it is an electron, a rock, or a human. Hence Intelligence is intelligent, Consciousness is conscious, Awareness is aware, Aliveness is alive.See, in your perspective, if a rock/paperclip has no consciousness but a human does, then the reason has to be physical/biological structure, and then we are problematically associating consciousness directly with biology. Talking in the small context I don't have a problem with this, but it has to be situated within the broader context in which it is known that all things have consciousness. This then resolves the issue of associating consciousness with biology (in the small context). - again, this is why I have said the question of whether something has consciousness is only ever a question to be asked in the small context, which isn't the spiritually relevant one. @ Andrew & Enigma (and to all other members), I am going to share an observation with you guys. You (A&E) both have been away from the forum and we didn't have any 'he said she said' issues here for quite a while. Suddenly you both came back and immediately we had the old 'he said she said' problem again. So it was kinda obvious that one of you guys or both of you guys must be the source of it. I've been watching this carefully and here's what I've found out: You (A) have to pay attention to Enigma's definitions. You go with the dictionary meanings as most others here. Enigma doesn't. But he doesn't tell you that right from the beginning. So either you find out that he has very unusual definitions for very common terms or you get sucked into a 'he said she said' conversation where after a while you usually don't even know anymore what you've actually been discussing. (At the moment, I am leaning towards E being the actual source of the confusion) So my suggestion to everyone posting here, get clear about your definitions right at the beginning of a conversation and you'll save yourself and others a lot of time, unnecessary trouble and frustration. If someone doesn't have clear definitions, point that out. If they can't give you clear definitions or don't use them consistently, point that out. If they still can't get their act together, give them the benefit of the doubt and offer to agree to disagree. If they decline that offer, disengage. That's the only way we get rid of this 'he said she said' nonsense and keep this a high quality forum. This is just meant as a general suggestion, not a new rule. No one will get banned for engaging in 'he said she said' stuff. But if it is taking over an entire thread (as happened here), I'm going to point that out from now on. R I lost you at "he said/she said issues", but I'll take the blame for whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 8, 2018 3:46:18 GMT -5
But again, I think that's the precise point at which contexts are being mixed. When we say a rock isn't conscious, intelligent, alive....we mean it in the same way that we mean an AI bot isn't conscious, intelligent, alive. It's a valid distinction to make, and a valid conversation. But the broader context is that all things have a consciousness, intelligence, aliveness....whether it is an electron, a rock, or a human. Hence Intelligence is intelligent, Consciousness is conscious, Awareness is aware, Aliveness is alive.See, in your perspective, if a rock/paperclip has no consciousness but a human does, then the reason has to be physical/biological structure, and then we are problematically associating consciousness directly with biology. Talking in the small context I don't have a problem with this, but it has to be situated within the broader context in which it is known that all things have consciousness. This then resolves the issue of associating consciousness with biology (in the small context). - again, this is why I have said the question of whether something has consciousness is only ever a question to be asked in the small context, which isn't the spiritually relevant one. @ Andrew & Enigma (and to all other members), I am going to share an observation with you guys. You (A&E) both have been away from the forum and we didn't have any 'he said she said' issues here for quite a while. Suddenly you both came back and immediately we had the old 'he said she said' problem again. So it was kinda obvious that one of you guys or both of you guys must be the source of it. I've been watching this carefully and here's what I've found out: You (A) have to pay attention to Enigma's definitions. You go with the dictionary meanings as most others here. Enigma doesn't. But he doesn't tell you that right from the beginning. So either you find out that he has very unusual definitions for very common terms or you get sucked into a 'he said she said' conversation where after a while you usually don't even know anymore what you've actually been discussing. (At the moment, I am leaning towards E being the actual source of the confusion) So my suggestion to everyone posting here, get clear about your definitions right at the beginning of a conversation and you'll save yourself and others a lot of time, unnecessary trouble and frustration. If someone doesn't have clear definitions, point that out. If they can't give you clear definitions or don't use them consistently, point that out. If they still can't get their act together, give them the benefit of the doubt and offer to agree to disagree. If they decline that offer, disengage. That's the only way we get rid of this 'he said she said' nonsense and keep this a high quality forum. This is just meant as a general suggestion, not a new rule. No one will get banned for engaging in 'he said she said' stuff. But if it is taking over an entire thread (as happened here), I'm going to point that out from now on. R I'm not sure I'm going to get clear on definitions if the definitions change, but I'll try and be less noisy. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 8, 2018 4:42:54 GMT -5
I'm not sure I'm going to get clear on definitions if the definitions change, but I'll try and be less noisy. Actually, you are doing just fine. You even ignored all the subtle references to insanity. So I guess I'll just have to babysit Enigma for a while.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 8, 2018 6:56:23 GMT -5
In flagrant disregard of Poloniuses advice, I disagree that E' is the only source of the confusion in their dialog, but will stop there unless anyone is really all that interested in it and even then ...  If you think that this is about finger pointing then you've missed the point. My only concern here is the content to noise ratio. And we've got a lot of noise recently. So it's already a mess. And I am not going to sort that out. I know how that ends. It can only get messier. Peter can assure you that. So I rather focus on the road ahead. And I don't think it's too much to ask. (see, I didn't even mention E or A) My interest here is quite targeted, and wasn't intended as a comment on your ministerial function. In the current state of the forum -- which I believe is quite an improvement over the past -- there's likely not much room here for anything other than the expression of the opinion, and that's fine. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 8, 2018 20:28:59 GMT -5
I'm not sure I'm going to get clear on definitions if the definitions change, but I'll try and be less noisy. Actually, you are doing just fine. You even ignored all the subtle references to insanity. So I guess I'll just have to babysit Enigma for a while. Or you could just cut to the chase and save some time.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 9, 2018 1:03:02 GMT -5
Actually, you are doing just fine. You even ignored all the subtle references to insanity. So I guess I'll just have to babysit Enigma for a while. Or you could just cut to the chase and save some time. Do you need a to-do-list? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 10, 2018 22:24:05 GMT -5
I don't even agree that what rocks are is alive. I would say what rocks are is Awareness, Consciousness, Intelligence, but that doesn't directly translate to being aware, conscious, intelligent. Aware, conscious, intelligent is how Awareness expresses in form. I'm currently paying attention to not being too noisy here...but I am naturally quite noisy lol. I don't want to keep repeating myself, so maybe give Tolle a listen here. If you don't want to listen to it all, go from 2.20 for about 2 minutes. If you two can't clean up your act in time (which is the most likely outcome), you'll get your own special thread, just for you two. Send me some suggestion for a thread title.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 10, 2018 22:32:24 GMT -5
That's why I'm asking, "How could you not know?!" And I get a bunch of TMT in reply. That's why I'm asking, 'How could you know', and I get a bunch of insults and contradictions in reply. Not sure if you've noticed, but for someone who has no reference at all for what we call CC, you have an awful lot to say about what CC actually is and what it isn't. And for someone who firmly believes that he can't know anything about other people except that they appear to him you also have an awful lot to say about what others can and can't know or perceive. And as someone who constantly talks about the value of WIBIGO and becoming conscious, you do quite a lot of giraffing. Doesn't that strike you as a little absurd and split-mindish? Just saying. And speaking of insults, it would be nice if you could stop calling others who disagree with you 'insane'. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 10, 2018 22:44:58 GMT -5
I'm currently paying attention to not being too noisy here...but I am naturally quite noisy lol. I don't want to keep repeating myself, so maybe give Tolle a listen here. If you don't want to listen to it all, go from 2.20 for about 2 minutes. If you two can't clean up your act in time (which is the most likely outcome), you'll get your own special thread, just for you two. Send me some suggestion for a thread title. Clean up our act as in, don't talk to each other? Don't disagree? What? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 10, 2018 23:42:41 GMT -5
Or you could just cut to the chase and save some time. Do you need a to-do-list? Thanks for cutting to the chase. Seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 11, 2018 0:28:37 GMT -5
You see, that's where your giraffe #1 is. Please honor the no giraffe rule. I'm stating my opinion that you are believing your CC experiences and it is a problem. Yeah, but that's a giraffe, as already explained to you a dozen times (not just by me). That's an objective fact. You can check that with the archive. And we have a strict no giraffes rule on this forum, fyi. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2018 11:38:36 GMT -5
No you have to read the whole quote. Reefs was clear that the boundaries are arbitrary (" you can draw the lines wherever you want"). The context is one step prior to emptiness. Similar to no idea is ultimately true, no object boundary is ultimately real. I'd say the context is a transition in between the absolute and relative. Hm, giraffe #3? Well, I hung up my gun for a pair of binoculars many months ago now. But if you're going to be even-handed about this you'd at least give E' the respect of a peeps court. And I'd be the first to volunteer as his lawyer.  In my opinion, his past contributions here should earn him some deference along these lines, and if I were to pick up the gun again he wouldn't be the only peep here bleeding.  It's true that these are foreign giraffes that broke their pens and crossed a border, but I think that could be sorted out peacefully, if not amicably, and I'd urge you to take a step back into objectivity, as they involve you directly. As far as maintaining order is concerned, you have to do what you have to do, but the quarantine idea would be the disaster of the Unmoderated section in miniature.  What I think might work better is an externally enforced GA between E' and andy. Let them take it back to the gab and sort it out there. Granted, that would be unfair to andy given the abusive atmosphere of the gab, but your job is the atmosphere of this forum, and I think that banning E' would ultimately be a net negative for that no matter how you slice it. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 11, 2018 11:47:23 GMT -5
Well, I hung up my gun for a pair of binoculars many months ago now. But if you're going to be even-handed about this you'd at least give E' the respect of a peeps court. And I'd be the first to volunteer as his lawyer. In my opinion, his past contributions here should earn him some deference along these lines, and if I were to pick up the gun again he wouldn't be the only peep here bleeding. It's true that these are foreign giraffes that broke their pens and crossed a border, but I think that could be sorted out peacefully, if not amicably, and I'd urge you to take a step back into objectivity, as they involve you directly. As far as maintaining order is concerned, you have to do what you have to do, but the quarantine idea would be the disaster of the Unmoderated section in miniature. What I think might work better is an externally enforced GA between E' and andy. Let them take it back to the gab and sort it out there. Granted, that would be unfair to andy given the abusive atmosphere of the gab, but your job is the atmosphere of this forum, and I think that banning E' would ultimately be a net negative for that no matter how you slice it. But this reminds me of the locked room mystery. A man is found hanging in a locked room. He is hanging from a rafter which he could not have reached. There is a puddle of water under him. What happened? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 11, 2018 11:48:49 GMT -5
Well, I hung up my gun for a pair of binoculars many months ago now. But if you're going to be even-handed about this you'd at least give E' the respect of a peeps court. And I'd be the first to volunteer as his lawyer. In my opinion, his past contributions here should earn him some deference along these lines, and if I were to pick up the gun again he wouldn't be the only peep here bleeding. It's true that these are foreign giraffes that broke their pens and crossed a border, but I think that could be sorted out peacefully, if not amicably, and I'd urge you to take a step back into objectivity, as they involve you directly. As far as maintaining order is concerned, you have to do what you have to do, but the quarantine idea would be the disaster of the Unmoderated section in miniature. What I think might work better is an externally enforced GA between E' and andy. Let them take it back to the gab and sort it out there. Granted, that would be unfair to andy given the abusive atmosphere of the gab, but your job is the atmosphere of this forum, and I think that banning E' would ultimately be a net negative for that no matter how you slice it. Negotiations already under way. We'll see. It's not what it looks like.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2018 11:54:34 GMT -5
Well, I hung up my gun for a pair of binoculars many months ago now. But if you're going to be even-handed about this you'd at least give E' the respect of a peeps court. And I'd be the first to volunteer as his lawyer. In my opinion, his past contributions here should earn him some deference along these lines, and if I were to pick up the gun again he wouldn't be the only peep here bleeding. It's true that these are foreign giraffes that broke their pens and crossed a border, but I think that could be sorted out peacefully, if not amicably, and I'd urge you to take a step back into objectivity, as they involve you directly. As far as maintaining order is concerned, you have to do what you have to do, but the quarantine idea would be the disaster of the Unmoderated section in miniature. What I think might work better is an externally enforced GA between E' and andy. Let them take it back to the gab and sort it out there. Granted, that would be unfair to andy given the abusive atmosphere of the gab, but your job is the atmosphere of this forum, and I think that banning E' would ultimately be a net negative for that no matter how you slice it. Negotiations already under way. We'll see. The one guy I ever jammed with on guitar wanted to write a reggae song one day but was at a loss for words. So I helped him. (infer the hair on the snare with the "...'s"): ".. ♪ bullets ... ♫ bullets ♫ .. ♪ bullets don't negotiate ♪ ... " |
|
In my opinion, his past contributions here should earn him some deference along these lines, and if I were to pick up the gun again he wouldn't be the only peep here bleeding. 
