Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2023 12:28:34 GMT -5
I did not say Rock is not conscious unequivocally. Since It appears to be not having conscious I assumed it is not conscious in the same I assume Reefs is conscious because he appears that way . So any appearance COULD be a 'viewpoint of consciousness' (to use your words)? Are there any limitations to that? For example, can a thought be a viewpoint? Can a triangle be a viewpoint? Can a word on the screen in front of you be a viewpoint? Not Interested!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 24, 2023 12:31:43 GMT -5
So any appearance COULD be a 'viewpoint of consciousness' (to use your words)? Are there any limitations to that? For example, can a thought be a viewpoint? Can a triangle be a viewpoint? Can a word on the screen in front of you be a viewpoint? Not Interested! ah haha no probs. I am stamped to ask you occasionally
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2023 13:10:44 GMT -5
ah haha no probs. I am stamped to ask you occasionally I am having difficulty comprehending the purpose behind your persistent questioning. It appears that your intention is not to gain a better understanding of my writing since you seem to have already grasped its meaning. In contrast, you continue to pose irrelevant questions. On the other hand, individuals like ouroboros seem genuinely interested in comprehending my writing, which I can perceive. Your behavior, on the other hand, seems to indicate that you derive pleasure from asking nonsensical questions.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 25, 2023 14:55:35 GMT -5
ah haha no probs. I am stamped to ask you occasionally I am having difficulty comprehending the purpose behind your persistent questioning. It appears that your intention is not to gain a better understanding of my writing since you seem to have already grasped its meaning. In contrast, you continue to pose irrelevant questions. On the other hand, individuals like ouroboros seem genuinely interested in comprehending my writing, which I can perceive. Your behavior, on the other hand, seems to indicate that you derive pleasure from asking nonsensical questions. Can I check, that sounds like AI helped you with this one...is that the correct impression? The reason I ask you questions is a) because I like connecting with you, and on this forum, we connect with each other often by questioning each other b) although I understand your view quite well, sometimes you will be discussing your view with someone and I suddenly see a new angle of questioning. I don't tend to repeat my questions to you, they are slightly new each time (though it is possible that I have forgotten what I have asked you.) The questions I ask are based on YOUR model, not mine. For example, I would never really speak of a 'viewpoint in consciousness', but you do, so I will use those words. I disagree that my recent questions are nonsensical, I think they make sense to ask, so I'm interested in which ones you see as nonsense, and why it is nonsense...?
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 25, 2023 15:28:39 GMT -5
... The questions I ask are based on YOUR model, not mine. ... I disagree that my recent questions are nonsensical, I think they make sense to ask, so I'm interested in which ones you see as nonsense, and why it is nonsense...? Sometimes people ask you questions to challenge, often with a dismissive tone, with no intention to understand you better. I don't remember you asking me such questions. But impressions are subjective. It would be useful for people to ponder why they're posting what they're posting, why they're asking what they're asking, why they need to show they're superior and, even worse, they need to show the other is inferior. The parental admonition " Think before you speak, write, act, ..." seems to have become politically incorrect. (I am using "think" with the positive meaning I give this word, not as "chatter" as it was stated that it is typically understood on this forum).
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 25, 2023 16:13:51 GMT -5
... The questions I ask are based on YOUR model, not mine. ... I disagree that my recent questions are nonsensical, I think they make sense to ask, so I'm interested in which ones you see as nonsense, and why it is nonsense...? Sometimes people ask you questions to challenge, often with a dismissive tone, with no intention to understand you better. I don't remember you asking me such questions. But impressions are subjective. It would be useful for people to ponder why they're posting what they're posting, why they're asking what they're asking, why they need to show they're superior and, even worse, they need to show the other is inferior. The parental admonition " Think before you speak, write, act, ..." seems to have become politically incorrect. (I am using "think" with the positive meaning I give this word, not as "chatter" as it was stated that it is typically understood on this forum). My principle reason for asking questions here is based on a desire to connect with people who share an interest in the deeper questions. In days gone by, I have experienced an interest in showing people they are wrong about something (specifically, my belief that they are wrong about something), not for the pleasure of seeing them be wrong, but because I believed it would be a good thing for them to see something the way I saw it. Somewhere along the way I relaxed more into a sense that everyone's spirituality is unique to them, and that's okay. I still enjoy the process of probing a bit, under the assumption that it is an unwritten agreement that we share here. I enjoy the process and experience of formulating the questions, as much as I do receiving the answers. I like the way it makes my mind work....I enjoy the way it stretches me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2023 19:19:27 GMT -5
I am having difficulty comprehending the purpose behind your persistent questioning. It appears that your intention is not to gain a better understanding of my writing since you seem to have already grasped its meaning. In contrast, you continue to pose irrelevant questions. On the other hand, individuals like ouroboros seem genuinely interested in comprehending my writing, which I can perceive. Your behavior, on the other hand, seems to indicate that you derive pleasure from asking nonsensical questions. Can I check, that sounds like AI helped you with this one...is that the correct impression? The reason I ask you questions is a) because I like connecting with you, and on this forum, we connect with each other often by questioning each other b) although I understand your view quite well, sometimes you will be discussing your view with someone and I suddenly see a new angle of questioning. I don't tend to repeat my questions to you, they are slightly new each time (though it is possible that I have forgotten what I have asked you.) The questions I ask are based on YOUR model, not mine. For example, I would never really speak of a 'viewpoint in consciousness', but you do, so I will use those words. I disagree that my recent questions are nonsensical, I think they make sense to ask, so I'm interested in which ones you see as nonsense, and why it is nonsense...? All your questions are gibberish!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 25, 2023 20:03:08 GMT -5
Can I check, that sounds like AI helped you with this one...is that the correct impression? The reason I ask you questions is a) because I like connecting with you, and on this forum, we connect with each other often by questioning each other b) although I understand your view quite well, sometimes you will be discussing your view with someone and I suddenly see a new angle of questioning. I don't tend to repeat my questions to you, they are slightly new each time (though it is possible that I have forgotten what I have asked you.) The questions I ask are based on YOUR model, not mine. For example, I would never really speak of a 'viewpoint in consciousness', but you do, so I will use those words. I disagree that my recent questions are nonsensical, I think they make sense to ask, so I'm interested in which ones you see as nonsense, and why it is nonsense...? All your questions are gibberish! Was my impression that you used AI in the previous message correct? (Pretty sure that your reply here was direct from your heart )
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 26, 2023 7:32:34 GMT -5
Can I check, that sounds like AI helped you with this one...is that the correct impression? The reason I ask you questions is a) because I like connecting with you, and on this forum, we connect with each other often by questioning each other b) although I understand your view quite well, sometimes you will be discussing your view with someone and I suddenly see a new angle of questioning. I don't tend to repeat my questions to you, they are slightly new each time (though it is possible that I have forgotten what I have asked you.) The questions I ask are based on YOUR model, not mine. For example, I would never really speak of a 'viewpoint in consciousness', but you do, so I will use those words. I disagree that my recent questions are nonsensical, I think they make sense to ask, so I'm interested in which ones you see as nonsense, and why it is nonsense...? All your questions are gibberish! Actually, I considered the question he posed to be as thought-provoking as it is absurd and amusing. It's a taxing question but perhaps not to confuse with merely gibberish. I will explain. To recap, in the discussion between you and I, we got to the point (in your not-knowing paradigm) where we have agreed that in the case of both reefs and rock, the fact of conscious cannot be known. So cannot be known equally, because they are appearance only. Agreed? … otherwise the reason has to be given why they would be treated differently. It should perhaps be noted here that there are actually two contexts which this can all be approached in. For arguments sake we can call them the relative and the absolute contexts. In the relative (not-knowing) context, neither rock nor reefs as conscious can be known with certainty. In the absolute (gnosis) context, the question is misconceived, but equally so for both. So the point is that there is consistency, logic. What you can't have is, in the relative context, the answer yes for one but not the other. Otherwise a reason must be specified why they are being treated differently (and it would almost certainly come down to a case of context-mixing). So putting that aside for the moment. Now Andrew comes along and is using the strategy known as 'reductio ad absurdum' to take the question to an extreme in order to really stress test the position. He does this by posing the question, does this not-knowing also apply to a triangle? To be clear, he is specifically referring to the relative (not-knowing) position here, because in the absolute context the question can be considered as misconceived to rock, reefs and triangle equally. So that is 'squared off'. But when in the relative context we are saying conscious cannot be known of both rock and reefs equally, then it is reasonable to ask, then why not triangle? I mean they are all merely appearance, so again, why would we treat them differently. Of course the question applied to a triangle is quite absurd and amusing at the same time, but it has a purpose. And that purpose is that Andrew still senses something amiss with the not-knowing position, and so wants to drill down a little further. At this stage I am moved to state my position, which is that triangles cannot in anyway be said to 'be conscious'. Talking generally, on the one hand the question isn't so much of an issue for me as it perhaps is for Gopal because I don't actually subscribe the not-knowing position which I see as merely mentation. So I don't have to explain why I would treat rock and reefs one way and triangle another. Really, anyone who subscribes to that position does have to explain why. But if we go back to the niz quote again, I do have a bit of an issue as well. Because when niz says this I'm pretty confident he is applying it to rock and reefs but not triangle, much as I would tend to too! To be clear, my issue is different from Gopal's issue, but it is quite a doozy. The best reason I can come up with to explain this potential discrepancy in my position is that triangles are entirely abstract whereas rock and reefs are not. Actually, this situation reminds me of some of the positions zd takes form time to time which I have queried. For me zd tends to be a bit heavy handed with what he categorises as merely abstraction, especially when talking in terms of THIS. Some may recall that this has led to some of my unconscious tree-thwacking type queries. For me, there has always been a distinction to be made between that which could be said to fall under 'contact' with sense spheres other than merely mind, and that which is merely [mental] abstract-ion. This current scenario perhaps highlights and ties in with that. Anyway, all said and done. This new scenario poses a particular and for me, rather interesting question. And that is to do with the nature of abstract-ion. The question Andrew has posed can be rephrased as … is triangle'ness somehow more abstract than rock'ness, (and reefs'ness for that matter). I say it is, but open it up for general forum consideration.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 26, 2023 8:24:56 GMT -5
All your questions are gibberish! Actually, I considered the question he posed to be as thought-provoking as it is absurd and amusing. It's a taxing question but perhaps not to confuse with merely gibberish. I will explain. To recap, in the discussion between you and I, we got to the point (in your not-knowing paradigm) where we have agreed that in the case of both reefs and rock, the fact of conscious cannot be known. So cannot be known equally, because they are appearance only. Agreed? … otherwise the reason has to be given why they would be treated differently. It should perhaps be noted here that there are actually two contexts which this can all be approached in. For arguments sake we can call them the relative and the absolute contexts. In the relative (not-knowing) context, neither rock nor reefs as conscious can be known with certainty. In the absolute (gnosis) context, the question is misconceived, but equally so for both. So the point is that there is consistency, logic. What you can't have is, in the relative context, the answer yes for one but not the other. Otherwise a reason must be specified why they are being treated differently (and it would almost certainly come down to a case of context-mixing). So putting that aside for the moment. Now Andrew comes along and is using the strategy known as 'reductio ad absurdum' to take the question to an extreme in order to really stress test the position. He does this by posing the question, does this not-knowing also apply to a triangle? To be clear, he is specifically referring to the relative (not-knowing) position here, because in the absolute context the question can be considered as misconceived to rock, reefs and triangle equally. So that is 'squared off'. But when in the relative context we are saying conscious cannot be known of both rock and reefs equally, then it is reasonable to ask, then why not triangle? I mean they are all merely appearance, so again, why would we treat them differently. Of course the question applied to a triangle is quite absurd and amusing at the same time, but it has a purpose. And that purpose is that Andrew still senses something amiss with the not-knowing position, and so wants to drill down a little further. At this stage I am moved to state my position, which is that triangles cannot in anyway be said to 'be conscious'. Talking generally, on the one hand the question isn't so much of an issue for me as it perhaps is for Gopal because I don't actually subscribe the not-knowing position which I see as merely mentation. So I don't have to explain why I would treat rock and reefs one way and triangle another. Really, anyone who subscribes to that position does have to explain why. But if we go back to the niz quote again, I do have a bit of an issue as well. Because when niz says this I'm pretty confident he is applying it to rock and reefs but not triangle, much as I would tend to too! To be clear, my issue is different from Gopal's issue, but it is quite a doozy. The best reason I can come up with to explain this potential discrepancy in my position is that triangles are entirely abstract whereas rock and reefs are not. Actually, this situation reminds me of some of the positions zd takes form time to time which I have queried. For me zd tends to be a bit heavy handed with what he categorises as merely abstraction, especially when talking in terms of THIS. Some may recall that this has led to some of my unconscious tree-thwacking type queries. For me, there has always been a distinction to be made between that which could be said to fall under 'contact' with sense spheres other than merely mind, and that which is merely [mental] abstract-ion. This current scenario perhaps highlights and ties in with that. Anyway, all said and done. This new scenario poses a particular and for me, rather interesting question. And that is to do with the nature of abstract-ion. The question Andrew has posed can be rephrased as … is triangle'ness somehow more abstract than rock'ness, (and reefs'ness for that matter). I say it is, but open it up for general forum consideration. That was absorbing reading thanks, I enjoyed the clarity of your thinking there. And yes, I offered the 'triangle' specifically because it is an abstraction. I also offered an option which is slightly less abstract....'a thought', but is still relatively abstract when compared to a rock. As you say though, in the not-knowing whether appearances are conscious, how would Gopal form a relative comparison? Isn't it all equally 'not-known'? If it's all equally 'not-known', what is the basis for a belief that indicates likelihood or probability? For me too, all these issues, questions and answers are contextual, and as you indicate, I'm interested in how...and whether....Gopal achieves contextual consistency within his model, and I prod and probe at that sometimes (not too sure it's welcome right now!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2023 9:08:24 GMT -5
All your questions are gibberish! Actually, I considered the question he posed to be as thought-provoking as it is absurd and amusing. It's a taxing question but perhaps not to confuse with merely gibberish. I will explain. To recap, in the discussion between you and I, we got to the point (in your not-knowing paradigm) where we have agreed that in the case of both reefs and rock, the fact of conscious cannot be known. So cannot be known equally, because they are appearance only. Agreed? … otherwise the reason has to be given why they would be treated differently. It should perhaps be noted here that there are actually two contexts which this can all be approached in. For arguments sake we can call them the relative and the absolute contexts. In the relative (not-knowing) context, neither rock nor reefs as conscious can be known with certainty. In the absolute (gnosis) context, the question is misconceived, but equally so for both. So the point is that there is consistency, logic. What you can't have is, in the relative context, the answer yes for one but not the other. Otherwise a reason must be specified why they are being treated differently (and it would almost certainly come down to a case of context-mixing). So putting that aside for the moment. Now Andrew comes along and is using the strategy known as 'reductio ad absurdum' to take the question to an extreme in order to really stress test the position. He does this by posing the question, does this not-knowing also apply to a triangle? To be clear, he is specifically referring to the relative (not-knowing) position here, because in the absolute context the question can be considered as misconceived to rock, reefs and triangle equally. So that is 'squared off'. But when in the relative context we are saying conscious cannot be known of both rock and reefs equally, then it is reasonable to ask, then why not triangle? I mean they are all merely appearance, so again, why would we treat them differently. Of course the question applied to a triangle is quite absurd and amusing at the same time, but it has a purpose. And that purpose is that Andrew still senses something amiss with the not-knowing position, and so wants to drill down a little further. At this stage I am moved to state my position, which is that triangles cannot in anyway be said to 'be conscious'. Talking generally, on the one hand the question isn't so much of an issue for me as it perhaps is for Gopal because I don't actually subscribe the not-knowing position which I see as merely mentation. So I don't have to explain why I would treat rock and reefs one way and triangle another. Really, anyone who subscribes to that position does have to explain why. But if we go back to the niz quote again, I do have a bit of an issue as well. Because when niz says this I'm pretty confident he is applying it to rock and reefs but not triangle, much as I would tend to too! To be clear, my issue is different from Gopal's issue, but it is quite a doozy. The best reason I can come up with to explain this potential discrepancy in my position is that triangles are entirely abstract whereas rock and reefs are not. Actually, this situation reminds me of some of the positions zd takes form time to time which I have queried. For me zd tends to be a bit heavy handed with what he categorises as merely abstraction, especially when talking in terms of THIS. Some may recall that this has led to some of my unconscious tree-thwacking type queries. For me, there has always been a distinction to be made between that which could be said to fall under 'contact' with sense spheres other than merely mind, and that which is merely [mental] abstract-ion. This current scenario perhaps highlights and ties in with that. Anyway, all said and done. This new scenario poses a particular and for me, rather interesting question. And that is to do with the nature of abstract-ion. The question Andrew has posed can be rephrased as … is triangle'ness somehow more abstract than rock'ness, (and reefs'ness for that matter). I say it is, but open it up for general forum consideration. TMT
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 26, 2023 9:17:17 GMT -5
Actually, I considered the question he posed to be as thought-provoking as it is absurd and amusing. It's a taxing question but perhaps not to confuse with merely gibberish. I will explain. To recap, in the discussion between you and I, we got to the point (in your not-knowing paradigm) where we have agreed that in the case of both reefs and rock, the fact of conscious cannot be known. So cannot be known equally, because they are appearance only. Agreed? … otherwise the reason has to be given why they would be treated differently. It should perhaps be noted here that there are actually two contexts which this can all be approached in. For arguments sake we can call them the relative and the absolute contexts. In the relative (not-knowing) context, neither rock nor reefs as conscious can be known with certainty. In the absolute (gnosis) context, the question is misconceived, but equally so for both. So the point is that there is consistency, logic. What you can't have is, in the relative context, the answer yes for one but not the other. Otherwise a reason must be specified why they are being treated differently (and it would almost certainly come down to a case of context-mixing). So putting that aside for the moment. Now Andrew comes along and is using the strategy known as 'reductio ad absurdum' to take the question to an extreme in order to really stress test the position. He does this by posing the question, does this not-knowing also apply to a triangle? To be clear, he is specifically referring to the relative (not-knowing) position here, because in the absolute context the question can be considered as misconceived to rock, reefs and triangle equally. So that is 'squared off'. But when in the relative context we are saying conscious cannot be known of both rock and reefs equally, then it is reasonable to ask, then why not triangle? I mean they are all merely appearance, so again, why would we treat them differently. Of course the question applied to a triangle is quite absurd and amusing at the same time, but it has a purpose. And that purpose is that Andrew still senses something amiss with the not-knowing position, and so wants to drill down a little further. At this stage I am moved to state my position, which is that triangles cannot in anyway be said to 'be conscious'. Talking generally, on the one hand the question isn't so much of an issue for me as it perhaps is for Gopal because I don't actually subscribe the not-knowing position which I see as merely mentation. So I don't have to explain why I would treat rock and reefs one way and triangle another. Really, anyone who subscribes to that position does have to explain why. But if we go back to the niz quote again, I do have a bit of an issue as well. Because when niz says this I'm pretty confident he is applying it to rock and reefs but not triangle, much as I would tend to too! To be clear, my issue is different from Gopal's issue, but it is quite a doozy. The best reason I can come up with to explain this potential discrepancy in my position is that triangles are entirely abstract whereas rock and reefs are not. Actually, this situation reminds me of some of the positions zd takes form time to time which I have queried. For me zd tends to be a bit heavy handed with what he categorises as merely abstraction, especially when talking in terms of THIS. Some may recall that this has led to some of my unconscious tree-thwacking type queries. For me, there has always been a distinction to be made between that which could be said to fall under 'contact' with sense spheres other than merely mind, and that which is merely [mental] abstract-ion. This current scenario perhaps highlights and ties in with that. Anyway, all said and done. This new scenario poses a particular and for me, rather interesting question. And that is to do with the nature of abstract-ion. The question Andrew has posed can be rephrased as … is triangle'ness somehow more abstract than rock'ness, (and reefs'ness for that matter). I say it is, but open it up for general forum consideration. That was absorbing reading thanks, I enjoyed the clarity of your thinking there. And yes, I offered the 'triangle' specifically because it is an abstraction. I also offered an option which is slightly less abstract....'a thought', but is still relatively abstract when compared to a rock. As you say though, in the not-knowing whether appearances are conscious, how would Gopal form a relative comparison? Isn't it all equally 'not-known'? If it's all equally 'not-known', what is the basis for a belief that indicates likelihood or probability? For me too, all these issues, questions and answers are contextual, and as you indicate, I'm interested in how...and whether....Gopal achieves contextual consistency within his model, and I prod and probe at that sometimes (not too sure it's welcome right now!) Yes, I hadn't considered whether thought might be considered somehow less abstract than a triangle. If so it gives me a bit of a dilemma really. In my own paradigm I can make a distinction between there being the potential for unconscious tree-thwacking, but not for unconscious triangle thwacking, (which is how I categorise triangles as being somehow more abstract than rocks). Accordingly, I suppose thought would fall in the triangle category as well. But perhaps this is more an issue of relative ethereality. In any event, I'm happy to state that I consider neither triangles or thoughts as having the potential to be conscious, in the absolute (gnosis) context within which I would tend to work. I.e. the context which pertains to the niz quote. I won't try to speak for the other camp on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 26, 2023 9:20:19 GMT -5
Actually, I considered the question he posed to be as thought-provoking as it is absurd and amusing. It's a taxing question but perhaps not to confuse with merely gibberish. I will explain. To recap, in the discussion between you and I, we got to the point (in your not-knowing paradigm) where we have agreed that in the case of both reefs and rock, the fact of conscious cannot be known. So cannot be known equally, because they are appearance only. Agreed? … otherwise the reason has to be given why they would be treated differently. It should perhaps be noted here that there are actually two contexts which this can all be approached in. For arguments sake we can call them the relative and the absolute contexts. In the relative (not-knowing) context, neither rock nor reefs as conscious can be known with certainty. In the absolute (gnosis) context, the question is misconceived, but equally so for both. So the point is that there is consistency, logic. What you can't have is, in the relative context, the answer yes for one but not the other. Otherwise a reason must be specified why they are being treated differently (and it would almost certainly come down to a case of context-mixing). So putting that aside for the moment. Now Andrew comes along and is using the strategy known as 'reductio ad absurdum' to take the question to an extreme in order to really stress test the position. He does this by posing the question, does this not-knowing also apply to a triangle? To be clear, he is specifically referring to the relative (not-knowing) position here, because in the absolute context the question can be considered as misconceived to rock, reefs and triangle equally. So that is 'squared off'. But when in the relative context we are saying conscious cannot be known of both rock and reefs equally, then it is reasonable to ask, then why not triangle? I mean they are all merely appearance, so again, why would we treat them differently. Of course the question applied to a triangle is quite absurd and amusing at the same time, but it has a purpose. And that purpose is that Andrew still senses something amiss with the not-knowing position, and so wants to drill down a little further. At this stage I am moved to state my position, which is that triangles cannot in anyway be said to 'be conscious'. Talking generally, on the one hand the question isn't so much of an issue for me as it perhaps is for Gopal because I don't actually subscribe the not-knowing position which I see as merely mentation. So I don't have to explain why I would treat rock and reefs one way and triangle another. Really, anyone who subscribes to that position does have to explain why. But if we go back to the niz quote again, I do have a bit of an issue as well. Because when niz says this I'm pretty confident he is applying it to rock and reefs but not triangle, much as I would tend to too! To be clear, my issue is different from Gopal's issue, but it is quite a doozy. The best reason I can come up with to explain this potential discrepancy in my position is that triangles are entirely abstract whereas rock and reefs are not. Actually, this situation reminds me of some of the positions zd takes form time to time which I have queried. For me zd tends to be a bit heavy handed with what he categorises as merely abstraction, especially when talking in terms of THIS. Some may recall that this has led to some of my unconscious tree-thwacking type queries. For me, there has always been a distinction to be made between that which could be said to fall under 'contact' with sense spheres other than merely mind, and that which is merely [mental] abstract-ion. This current scenario perhaps highlights and ties in with that. Anyway, all said and done. This new scenario poses a particular and for me, rather interesting question. And that is to do with the nature of abstract-ion. The question Andrew has posed can be rephrased as … is triangle'ness somehow more abstract than rock'ness, (and reefs'ness for that matter). I say it is, but open it up for general forum consideration. TMT ... I won't try to speak for the other camp on this issue. Okay, it seems neither will they!
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Apr 26, 2023 9:38:40 GMT -5
It is foolish to assume that because you possess a head, all humans possess a head. You can't know this.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Apr 26, 2023 9:48:26 GMT -5
It is foolish to assume that because you possess a head, all humans possess a head. You can't know this. This is like the inverse of 'the headless way'. (edit. Not entirely sure where you're coming from with it)
|
|