Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:09 pm "Not all language has the aspect of separation, obviously."

Of course all language has the aspect of separation. It just that separation is not always the primary purpose of language.

So, WHERE exactly in the language, 'Together ALL is the One WHOLE' is the aspect of separation?

#

"Another function of language is to point out and SHOW the actual REAL Truth of things."

To point the way, yes.

So, IF the actual REAL Truth of things is, for example, 'Together ALL is the One WHOLE', then WHY is this ONLY 'pointing to' thee Truth, and NOT 'pointing out' thee Truth?

#

Reality is not a seamless whole.

"Is it NOT? If there IS a separation, then where EXACTLY is the "seam"?"

Well, one example: 'me' and my skin.

Who and/or what IS the 'me', and WHERE exactly is the "seam/separation"?

#

Reality, in fact, is a big, mostly empty, box which discrete things inside it.

"Are 'you' absolutely positively 100% SURE that this is an irrefutable and unambiguous FACT?"

As I reckon things: yes.

That is okay. If 'you' are NOT open to any thing else, then that is PERFECTLY FINE with me.

"That is okay. If 'you' are NOT open to any thing else, then that is PERFECTLY FINE with me."

You don't seem particularly open either, Age.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:54 pm Have I shown ANYWHERE throughout this forum where I have NOT been TOTALLY Honest at all?

Let's just say disingenuous. It is not totally honest to make a long comment about something you have not bothered to examine. If you had even looked at the article I referenced, The Wisdom of Tathagatagarbha, you would know it is opposed to all, "isms." It is both satirical and metaphor. You do not need to read it, but please do not judge what you know nothing about.

It sure seems like you are not very open to any new ideas. That's fine, but even if you do not agree with something new, you might find it interesting or even entertaining.

I missed some stuff in your last post...

"So, WHERE exactly in the language, 'Together ALL is the One WHOLE' is the aspect of separation?"

That's a nonsense phrase, meaningless.

#

"So, IF the actual REAL Truth of things is, for example, 'Together ALL is the One WHOLE', then WHY is this ONLY 'pointing to' thee Truth, and NOT 'pointing out' thee Truth?"

One of the real truths is, again, Reality is a big, mostly empty, box with discrete 'things' in it.

#

"Who and/or what IS the 'me', and WHERE exactly is the "seam/separation"?"

In context: 'me' (that's me, Henry Quirk), is a guy loungin' on the sofa, pokin' at an Ipad. The 'seam' or point of separation between me and the world (where I physically end [or begin]) is the boundary of my skin.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 3:25 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:18 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:05 am

Either answer the actual question asked, or do not. Deflecting does nothing for me.

Could God exist as NOT real?

If no, then there is NO use adding the words 'as real' after you use the words 'God exists'.

If yes, then HOW?

Gandalf exists as a fiction; in the minds of people who have read TLOTR, and have seen the films of the book. He exists as an idea. So he exists as NOT real.
So, yes, God does, in fact exist in exactly that way.

Thank you for providing an answer to the actual OPEN,
clarifying question.

Therefore, God CAN and DOES exist, in fiction. So, this s settled, once and for ALL.

God DOES EXIST.

Now, whether the already, acknowledged (and accepted?), EXISTING God is non fiction, and thus a REAL thing, just needs to be discussed, peacefully, AND resolved, which, by the way, is A very simple and very easy thing to do as well.

Pink Unicorn also EXIST.

Please refer to the posts I have already made above.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 3:56 pm "That is okay. If 'you' are NOT open to any thing else, then that is PERFECTLY FINE with me."

You don't seem particularly open either, Age.

In regards to 'WHAT' EXACTLY?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:44 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 3:56 pm "That is okay. If 'you' are NOT open to any thing else, then that is PERFECTLY FINE with me."

You don't seem particularly open either, Age.

In regards to 'WHAT' EXACTLY?

Good question. 'WHAT' EXACTLY do you think I'm not open to?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:07 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:54 pm Have I shown ANYWHERE throughout this forum where I have NOT been TOTALLY Honest at all?

Let's just say disingenuous.

Some could say "disingenuous", but then it all depends on what exact definition of that word is being used. I could agree with 'you' and say, "Yes let us just say, 'disingenuous', from the definition that I have NOT been candid nor sincere, typically by pretending that I know less about something than what I really do. But, was that the definition 'you' were thinking of when 'you' used the 'disingenuous' word, or were 'you' thinking of some thing else?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:07 pm It is not totally honest to make a long comment about something you have not bothered to examine.

But that would all depend on what the "long comment" was actually about and in regards to.

Was ANY thing I wrote, in ANY way, in disagreement about those writings?

If no, then HOW EXACTLY is it supposedly NOT honest to make the "long comment", which I actually made?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:07 pmIf you had even looked at the article I referenced, The Wisdom of Tathagatagarbha, you would know it is opposed to all, "isms." It is both satirical and metaphor. You do not need to read it, but please do not judge what you know nothing about.

I think 'you' have taken what I wrote completely out of context.

When I wrote;
A common practice of adult human beings is 'TRYING TO' put yourselves into compartmentalized separate groups. The trouble with 'trying to do this' is it is just NOT possible, in a collectively agreed sense.

Any group that end in "ist", or any religious group, or ANY group at all for that matter, except for the One group that I actually belong to and am, are just separat-ist groups, which are instantly an incorrect use of terms.


I was NEVER judging what the writings were about. I was referencing what 'you' said;
"perhaps you are a Tathist"

'you' were 'trying to' put 'me' into some "ist" group, namely the "tathist" group. Judging 'me' on the words I used 'you' were seeing 'me' as fitting into the group "tath-ist". Not that 'seeing' or 'trying to' do this some thing bad. I was just pointing out that it would NOT work.

If the Truth be KNOWN I did have a quick LOOK AT the article. I even said;
I had a very quick glimpse, at just a very tiny fraction, of that article. And, if you want to know what I thought at that time about the very small amount I read, then it seems very close to my views. I have NOT "judged" the writings, so I am NOT sure WHY 'you' wrote what you have here.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:07 pmIt sure seems like you are not very open to any new ideas.

Maybe re-read what I wrote previously, and then POINT OUT and SHOW exactly WHERE I have said ANY thing that APPEARS CLOSED to the, so called, "new" ideas?

Then the readers will ALSO be able to SEE what SEEMS to 'you'.

Maybe I am NOT very open to any new ideas, as 'you' say I am, from your perspective. But, from my perspective, I can NOT see where I am being CLOSED at all to the writings. So, if 'you' can provide evidence where I am NOT being very open, then we can all SEE this also.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:07 pm That's fine, but even if you do not agree with something new, you might find it interesting or even entertaining.

If thee Truth be KNOWN the tiny amount I read I DID AGREE with it. I also DID FIND it interesting AND entertaining. I even wanted to keep reading more of it.

In fact, a sense of 'relief' is felt when reading other writings, which are inline with mine.

Also, I would like to read ALL of those writings/ideas, some time, but, just at the moment, I prefer to keep concentrating on learning how to communicate my own views in better ways.

As can be CLEARLY EVIDENCED here, my ability to get my True thoughts across to "others" is NOT very good at all. Just LOOK AT how much of what I have said to 'you' was completely taken out of context AND misunderstood. This is OBVIOUSLY NOT any one "else's" fault but MINE.

I NEED to keep learning how to communicate BETTER, in order to be FULLY understood.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:24 am

BardoXV wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:43 pm More specifically a Lutheran but I listen to a lot of Atheist programs and call-in shows. Mostly I agree with the Atheist as they demolish the Theist who tries to prove the existence of God. I look at the old testament as parabel since Jesus had to learn the practice somewhere.

So do you still believe God exists as real?

Do you believe love exists? If yes then "belief" is a nonsensical application to the term god. It contradicts. If no and it's merely sperm meets egg baby created well there ya go! Totally scientific.. that's scientific love. It doesn't exist it's merely sperm joins with egg. Riddle solved next.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:11 pm I missed some stuff in your last post...

"So, WHERE exactly in the language, 'Together ALL is the One WHOLE' is the aspect of separation?"

That's a nonsense phrase, meaningless.

It is so called, "nonsense" AND "meaningless" to 'you' because it goes against your BELIEFS. And, OBVIOUSLY no one is OPEN to any thing, which opposes their BELIEFS.

#

"So, IF the actual REAL Truth of things is, for example, 'Together ALL is the One WHOLE', then WHY is this ONLY 'pointing to' thee Truth, and NOT 'pointing out' thee Truth?"

One of the real truths is, again, Reality is a big, mostly empty, box with discrete 'things' in it.

But is this thee REAL truth or just a BELIEF of 'yours', which MAY BE thee REAL Truth?

If it IS thee REAL Truth, then what EVIDENCE and PROOF has this been based on EXACTLY?

#

"Who and/or what IS the 'me', and WHERE exactly is the "seam/separation"?"

In context: 'me' (that's me, Henry Quirk), is a guy loungin' on the sofa, pokin' at an Ipad. The 'seam' or point of separation between me and the world (where I physically end [or begin]) is the boundary of my skin.

So, what IS between the skin and the next thing?

Also, could 'your' view of things be a narrowed view, and not necessarily the FULL and WHOLE view of things?

For example, are 'you' LOOK AT this and VIEWING this FROM the smallest quantum level as well as AT and FROM the complete, big, and whole level, or, are you just LOOKING FROM the perspective of just one human being, from the human being level ONLY?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:53 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 3:25 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:18 pm

Gandalf exists as a fiction; in the minds of people who have read TLOTR, and have seen the films of the book. He exists as an idea. So he exists as NOT real.
So, yes, God does, in fact exist in exactly that way.

Thank you for providing an answer to the actual OPEN,
clarifying question.

Therefore, God CAN and DOES exist, in fiction. So, this s settled, once and for ALL.

God DOES EXIST.

Now, whether the already, acknowledged (and accepted?), EXISTING God is non fiction, and thus a REAL thing, just needs to be discussed, peacefully, AND resolved, which, by the way, is A very simple and very easy thing to do as well.

Pink Unicorn also EXIST.

Yes, I thought we just AGREED to this.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:53 pmPlease refer to the posts I have already made above.

What for EXACTLY?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:00 am

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:44 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 3:56 pm "That is okay. If 'you' are NOT open to any thing else, then that is PERFECTLY FINE with me."

You don't seem particularly open either, Age.

In regards to 'WHAT' EXACTLY?

Good question. 'WHAT' EXACTLY do you think I'm not open to?

Was my question so GOOD that 'you' were completely INCAPABLE of answering it DIRECTLY, or is the reason 'you' did NOT answer my OPEN clarifying question for some other reason?

You made the claim that I do NOT seem particularly OPEN, yet when I ask 'you' for clarity about in regards to 'what' exactly, you provide absolutely NOTHING whatsoever. WHY is this?

Now, 'WHAT' EXACTLY I think 'you', "henry quirk" are NOT open to IS any thing other than what 'you', "yourself", wrote here:
Reality, IN FACT, is a big, mostly empty, box which discrete things inside it.

Tell us if what I think is True or False. Are 'you' OPEN to the FACT that 'Reality' could be NOT a "mostly empty box with things inside of it"?

Your use of the 'is' word indicates that you are NOT open at all to any thing else.

"So, what IS between the skin and the next thing?"

Space, air, clothes, etc.

#

"Also, could 'your' view of things be a narrowed view, and not necessarily the FULL and WHOLE view of things?"

Mebbe your view is too wide and diffuse: it's as though you're tryin' to see the whole forest and, in the tryin', have come to believe the trees are imaginary.

#

"are you just LOOKING FROM the perspective of just one human being, from the human being level ONLY?"

Absolutely.

#

"Was my question so GOOD that 'you' were completely INCAPABLE of answering it DIRECTLY, or is the reason 'you' did NOT answer my OPEN clarifying question for some other reason?"

You never explained what exactly you think I'm not open to. I figured you ought to explain yourself first.

#

"Now, 'WHAT' EXACTLY I think 'you', "henry quirk" are NOT open to IS any thing other than what 'you', "yourself", wrote here:
Reality, IN FACT, is a big, mostly empty, box which discrete things inside it."

And I believe you are not open to the idea that Reality is a big, mostly empty, box with discrete things inside it.

#

"Tell us if what I think is True or False. Are 'you' OPEN to the FACT that 'Reality' could be NOT a "mostly empty box with things inside of it"?"

I am no more open or closed to an alternate view than you.

DMT wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:38 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:24 am

BardoXV wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:43 pm More specifically a Lutheran but I listen to a lot of Atheist programs and call-in shows. Mostly I agree with the Atheist as they demolish the Theist who tries to prove the existence of God. I look at the old testament as parabel since Jesus had to learn the practice somewhere.

So do you still believe God exists as real?

Do you believe love exists? If yes then "belief" is a nonsensical application to the term god. It contradicts.

Love exists as an emotion that can be empirically inferred via structure of the brain, the chemicals, the human behavior, etc. Love is a justified true belief.

Belief [personal conviction of truth] can still be applied to the word 'God' but it is not a justified true belief, i.e. not verifiable, testable, falsifiable and the likes.

Not sure what is your main point.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:05 am "So, what IS between the skin and the next thing?"

Space, air, clothes, etc.

In other words, there is ALWAYS some thing connected to, and, in a sense, 'you' are NOT really a completely separate thing?

#

"Also, could 'your' view of things be a narrowed view, and not necessarily the FULL and WHOLE view of things?"

Mebbe your view is too wide and diffuse: it's as though you're tryin' to see the whole forest and, in the tryin', have come to believe the trees are imaginary.

Or maybe from the perspective of EVERY tree I am LOOKING AT and SEEING the WHOLE forest, and I am NOT 'trying to' do at all what 'you' see I am doing.

The very FACT that I do NOT 'believe' any thing reveals that 'you' are WRONG, at least, in this regard.

#

"are you just LOOKING FROM the perspective of just one human being, from the human being level ONLY?"

Absolutely.

Okay, noted.

#

"Was my question so GOOD that 'you' were completely INCAPABLE of answering it DIRECTLY, or is the reason 'you' did NOT answer my OPEN clarifying question for some other reason?"

You never explained what exactly you think I'm not open to. I figured you ought to explain yourself first.

If 'you' figured that I OUGHT to explain myself first, then WHY did you NOT ask me to explain myself first?

I have now explained exactly what I see as 'you' NOT being open to. So, will 'you' now explain what you see that I am NOT open to exactly?

#

"Now, 'WHAT' EXACTLY I think 'you', "henry quirk" are NOT open to IS any thing other than what 'you', "yourself", wrote here:
Reality, IN FACT, is a big, mostly empty, box which discrete things inside it."

And I believe you are not open to the idea that Reality is a big, mostly empty, box with discrete things inside it.

I am VERY OPEN to this. Where have I supposedly written any thing, which would SHOW otherwise.

If the Truth be KNOWN, what 'you' said here is almost COMPLETELY True, from my perspective.



#

"Tell us if what I think is True or False. Are 'you' OPEN to the FACT that 'Reality' could be NOT a "mostly empty box with things inside of it"?"

I am no more open or closed to an alternate view than you.

LOL

If 'you' answered THEE question, OPENLY and Honestly, then whether this is even remotely true or NOT would be SEEN.

WHY did 'you' just NOT answer the question?

Are 'you' 'trying to' hide some thing, which is ALREADY OBVIOUS anyway, by the way?

How are 'you' as OPEN as I am, as I am COMPLETELY OPEN, and thus NOT closed at all?

'you' BELIEVE; "That the Universe is NOT separated into separate things", and, "All language has the aspect of separation", correct?

If yes, then SHOW how 'you' are OPEN to any thing opposing this.

If, however, no, then what do 'you' BELIEVE exactly if not that?