Philosophical discussion

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Philosophical discussion

Post by Belinda »

Age wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:05 pm
Walker wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:00 am
Age wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:53 am

Therefore, EXACTLY as I had envisioned.

So now, what is the name of the 'thing' that causes, creates, or provides 'the mechanics of matter', and, what is the name of the 'thing' that causes, creates, or provides 'the autonomy of creatures'?

And, could those 'things' just what the word 'God' has meant or been related to, EXACTLY?
“Papa's faith is people
Mama she believes in cleaning
Papa's faith is in people
Mama she's always cleaning
Papa brought home the sugar
Mama taught me the deeper meaning”
- Joni Mitchell


Comment:
The deeper meaning is found in the causes, effects and implications of cleaning (order, and ordering.)
Creation of order. Preservation of order. Destruction of order.
This causes all movement in the universe, even the “mechanics of matter,” referenced by Weil.
Each is necessary for the other.
Therefore, EXACTLY, as I have been SAYING and POINTING OUT, ALREADY.
Is the "deeper meaning" the task that you do or is it the feelings of the people for whom you do the task?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Philosophical discussion

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pm
How can you NOT distinguish between the physical things and the 'nothingness' of 'empty space'?
Who would do that?

The distinction is purely conceptual within consciousness, inseparable from it. No one has ever seen consciousness, therefore, the difference is illusory, a difference where there is none. The word ''different'' is a concept known..no one has ever seen difference, no more than consciousness can be seen...consciousness is known, it is the knowing that cannot be known...you are that knowing.
And I have no idea as to HOW OR WHY dreaming happens, all I know is that it does.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmWhich is NOT SURPRISING, AT ALL, considering that you can NOT even distinguish between what is a physical thing and the empty space which is NEEDED for physical things to exist.
Conceptually, there is space and the contents of space, however, the difference is illusory, since there is only consciousness conscious of itself alone all one without a second. The two things are actually one thing, there is no need for a middle man to point out difference.

I'm using the word ''space'' as a metaphor for consciousness.
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 7:05 am
A mirror and it's reflection are indistinguishable,
Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmBut they ARE, to me.

There is 'the mirror', and then there is 'the reflection'. Two VERY EASILY distinguishable things. Well to me they are anyway.
Within the dream of separation, there appears to be separate things, known as conceptual objects. In reality, there is no object separate from the space in which is it seen, since the object is made out of the space in which it occupies. Difference is the illusion of conceptual separation, that takes place in perception, and no one has ever seen perception.
Reality is an illusion ..full stop.

I'm using the ''mirror'' word as a metaphor for consciousness, by the way...many words for the same thing, all consciously known concepts, inseparable from the knowing.

Concepts are known and are indistinguishable from the knower, because language is consciousness in the shape and form of language. In other words, there is only consciousness.

The distinction between the knower consciousness and the object known is consciousness knowing, the difference is purely illusional.

You can make up your own mind about what I am saying to you, you can reject what I am saying in favor of your own ideas, but it will not change anything I have said, because what I am saying I am very sure about, and nothing you say to refute my saying will make any difference to me, I already know that what I am saying is correct, so I'm just warning you here.



Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 1:08 pm inseparable and always one and the same phenomena, and that was my point, about the mirror analogy.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmWell your point is NOT been SHOWN that well.
Well maybe to you there, but to me here, it's very well shown.

Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmBy the way, your mirror analogy can be REFUTED as all one has to do is cover the face of the mirror and then there is NO reflection, but the mirror, OBVIOUSLY, REMAINS. Meaning; A mirror and its reflection ARE distinguishable.
But this is just the play of concepts again.
However, when I use the mirror analogy I'm talking about being conscious, or aware you are aware.
Of course a mirror as it is known can be covered over by a piece of cloth, so that when you look in it, no image will show.
But I'm not talking about those concepts, I'm talking about consciousness, being and presence, which are all the same one state that cannot be covered over....When I close my eyes, yes, there does appear to be a covering over of images seen, for they no longer can be seen when I close my eyes, but that's not what I am talking about. Consciousness, being, presence, is still occuring whether there are images seen or not. As soon as I open my eyes, images reappear, because they are inseparable from the consciousness that I am, the distinction between the seer and the seen are conceptual. In reality, the difference is illusory.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmEven your OWN words CLEARLY points this Fact out. Saying, " A mirror and 'its' reflection' " means TWO separate or distinguishable things, and, saying, that those TWO things 'are' indistinguishable means there are TWO, different, things.
Well of course, words separate consciousness into seer and seen, this is obvious to everyone.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 11:48 amAnd 'a reflection' is ACTUALLY some thing other than 'a mirror', itself. A 'reflection' can be and ACTUALLY is 'a reflection'.

A 'mirror' AND a 'reflection' are two VERY DIFFERENT things, OBVIOUSLY.
The difference is conceptual,
Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmName one thing that is NOT 'conceptual'.
No one can do that. Concepts are known by the seer, and the seer cannot see itself, nor can the knower know itself...without splitting it self in two...knowing and seeing are ONE without a second.. seeing and knowing as and through the concepts known, which are indistinguishable inseparable reflections of itself alone, all one. Any difference is illusory.

Age, you do seem to struggle with that word ''ILLUSORY''



Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 1:08 pm a mirror is a mirror, a reflection is a reflection. Yes, two different concepts. But the point was, the mirror is a metaphor for consciousness, now that's not too difficult to work out that consciousness and the contents of consciousness are the same one phenomena.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmBut 'consciousness' is just consciousness, while 'the contents of consciousness', if you have not guessed it already is 'the contents of consciousness'.
Therefore, all there is consciousness appearing to be two things..aka subject and object...obviously.
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 1:08 pm Different words for the same principle is all that I am saying.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmWell if that is ALL that you are saying, then I suggest just say, "Different words for the same principle", and then we can LOOK AT 'that', and then DISCUSS 'that', that is; if we want to.

But can you YET SEE the CONTRADICTION in speaking that way?
Of course there is going to be a contradiction. For how can oneness be infinitely every other thing, of course it's contradictory, that's just unavoidable within the dream of separation, aka the conceptual realm of identification with thought.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmAlso, remember you BELIEVE that 'this' can NOT be explained in words, NOR language, so to fulfill your OWN BELIEFS and 'confirmation biases' here you will, purposely, go out of your way to say things that are NONSENSICAL, ILLOGICAL, or SELF-CONTRADICTORY.
So it seems, and is why we are still to this day repeating over and over again using words, what it is we are trying to show each other, because it's very difficult to put into words...not that it's impossible...

By the way, what I say does appear to you to be NONSENSICAL, ILLOGICAL, or SELF-CONTRADICTORY...is perfect CLARITY to me here...so think what you like, as it will make no difference to what I know and experience as truth here in my mind.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Philosophical discussion

Post by Dontaskme »

Walker wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:00 am
Age wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:53 am
Nick_A wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 6:48 pm AGE



"It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures." ~ Simone Weil.
Therefore, EXACTLY as I had envisioned.

So now, what is the name of the 'thing' that causes, creates, or provides 'the mechanics of matter', and, what is the name of the 'thing' that causes, creates, or provides 'the autonomy of creatures'?

And, could those 'things' just what the word 'God' has meant or been related to, EXACTLY?
“Papa's faith is people
Mama she believes in cleaning
Papa's faith is in people
Mama she's always cleaning
Papa brought home the sugar
Mama taught me the deeper meaning”
- Joni Mitchell


Comment:
The deeper meaning is found in the causes, effects and implications of cleaning (order, and ordering.)
Creation of order. Preservation of order. Destruction of order.
This causes all movement in the universe, even the “mechanics of matter,” referenced by Weil.
Each is necessary for the other.
Effects are always the result of their Cause and could not exist without a first cause ... therefore in my humble opinion, the idea of a first cause was a huge and grave mistake, I mean look at what this first cause has started. Who or what in their right mind would cause this to happen...who or what ever this first cause is, is the only one responsible for everything that happens on this planet.... Oh, I guess that's no one then. No more need to pray to that great and mighty loving invisible ATOM in the desperate hope of saving your ass. Your addiction to HOpium is just making the world even more fucked up than it already is by your insanely self indulgent grotesque addiction to pain and suffering.

Why would any intelligent agency, create such a crude idea of making sentient feeling organisms, capable of feeling pain .. is just beyond my comprehension. Oh, thank fully, no creator ever existed. And is why the only way to endure the pain of living is to bear it out until it's all over, be comfortably numb like a zombie until dead.

What a joke, to think we were created by some loving God..words just fail...D fuck is wrong with people, just get me out of here, somewhere so far away from this clown planet.... please.

Only EFFECTS are known, not their first cause.

.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Philosophical discussion

Post by Walker »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 3:54 pm
Only EFFECTS are known, not their first cause.

.
We may and can surmise that someone assembled the Legos into organized patterns, although without acceptable proof the ultimate origins of the elements comprising the little plastic pieces may remain unknown.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Philosophical discussion

Post by Dontaskme »

Walker wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:14 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 3:54 pm
Only EFFECTS are known, not their first cause.

.
We may and can surmise that someone assembled the Legos into organized patterns, although without acceptable proof the ultimate origins of the elements comprising the little plastic pieces may remain unknown.
Lego pieces know nothing of their reality. The mind that constructed this plastic matter has never been seen. What is actual seeing can only be imagined, and even the idea of imagination is unimaginable...lego land is all that can be known, and wow we all love a good toy story.
Age
Posts: 20196
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophical discussion

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 2:43 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pm
How can you NOT distinguish between the physical things and the 'nothingness' of 'empty space'?
Who would do that?

The distinction is purely conceptual within consciousness, inseparable from it. No one has ever seen consciousness, therefore, the difference is illusory, a difference where there is none. The word ''different'' is a concept known..no one has ever seen difference, no more than consciousness can be seen...consciousness is known, it is the knowing that cannot be known...you are that knowing.
And I have no idea as to HOW OR WHY dreaming happens, all I know is that it does.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmWhich is NOT SURPRISING, AT ALL, considering that you can NOT even distinguish between what is a physical thing and the empty space which is NEEDED for physical things to exist.
Conceptually, there is space and the contents of space, however, the difference is illusory, since there is only consciousness conscious of itself alone all one without a second. The two things are actually one thing, there is no need for a middle man to point out difference.

I'm using the word ''space'' as a metaphor for consciousness.
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 7:05 am
A mirror and it's reflection are indistinguishable,
Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmBut they ARE, to me.

There is 'the mirror', and then there is 'the reflection'. Two VERY EASILY distinguishable things. Well to me they are anyway.
Within the dream of separation, there appears to be separate things, known as conceptual objects. In reality, there is no object separate from the space in which is it seen, since the object is made out of the space in which it occupies. Difference is the illusion of conceptual separation, that takes place in perception, and no one has ever seen perception.
Reality is an illusion ..full stop.

I'm using the ''mirror'' word as a metaphor for consciousness, by the way...many words for the same thing, all consciously known concepts, inseparable from the knowing.

Concepts are known and are indistinguishable from the knower, because language is consciousness in the shape and form of language. In other words, there is only consciousness.

The distinction between the knower consciousness and the object known is consciousness knowing, the difference is purely illusional.

You can make up your own mind about what I am saying to you, you can reject what I am saying in favor of your own ideas, but it will not change anything I have said, because what I am saying I am very sure about, and nothing you say to refute my saying will make any difference to me, I already know that what I am saying is correct, so I'm just warning you here.



Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 1:08 pm inseparable and always one and the same phenomena, and that was my point, about the mirror analogy.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmWell your point is NOT been SHOWN that well.
Well maybe to you there, but to me here, it's very well shown.

Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmBy the way, your mirror analogy can be REFUTED as all one has to do is cover the face of the mirror and then there is NO reflection, but the mirror, OBVIOUSLY, REMAINS. Meaning; A mirror and its reflection ARE distinguishable.
But this is just the play of concepts again.
However, when I use the mirror analogy I'm talking about being conscious, or aware you are aware.
Of course a mirror as it is known can be covered over by a piece of cloth, so that when you look in it, no image will show.
But I'm not talking about those concepts, I'm talking about consciousness, being and presence, which are all the same one state that cannot be covered over....When I close my eyes, yes, there does appear to be a covering over of images seen, for they no longer can be seen when I close my eyes, but that's not what I am talking about. Consciousness, being, presence, is still occuring whether there are images seen or not. As soon as I open my eyes, images reappear, because they are inseparable from the consciousness that I am, the distinction between the seer and the seen are conceptual. In reality, the difference is illusory.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmEven your OWN words CLEARLY points this Fact out. Saying, " A mirror and 'its' reflection' " means TWO separate or distinguishable things, and, saying, that those TWO things 'are' indistinguishable means there are TWO, different, things.
Well of course, words separate consciousness into seer and seen, this is obvious to everyone.
Age wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 11:48 amAnd 'a reflection' is ACTUALLY some thing other than 'a mirror', itself. A 'reflection' can be and ACTUALLY is 'a reflection'.

A 'mirror' AND a 'reflection' are two VERY DIFFERENT things, OBVIOUSLY.
The difference is conceptual,
Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmName one thing that is NOT 'conceptual'.
No one can do that. Concepts are known by the seer, and the seer cannot see itself, nor can the knower know itself...without splitting it self in two...knowing and seeing are ONE without a second.. seeing and knowing as and through the concepts known, which are indistinguishable inseparable reflections of itself alone, all one. Any difference is illusory.

Age, you do seem to struggle with that word ''ILLUSORY''



Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 1:08 pm a mirror is a mirror, a reflection is a reflection. Yes, two different concepts. But the point was, the mirror is a metaphor for consciousness, now that's not too difficult to work out that consciousness and the contents of consciousness are the same one phenomena.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmBut 'consciousness' is just consciousness, while 'the contents of consciousness', if you have not guessed it already is 'the contents of consciousness'.
Therefore, all there is consciousness appearing to be two things..aka subject and object...obviously.
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 1:08 pm Different words for the same principle is all that I am saying.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmWell if that is ALL that you are saying, then I suggest just say, "Different words for the same principle", and then we can LOOK AT 'that', and then DISCUSS 'that', that is; if we want to.

But can you YET SEE the CONTRADICTION in speaking that way?
Of course there is going to be a contradiction. For how can oneness be infinitely every other thing, of course it's contradictory, that's just unavoidable within the dream of separation, aka the conceptual realm of identification with thought.
Age wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:55 pmAlso, remember you BELIEVE that 'this' can NOT be explained in words, NOR language, so to fulfill your OWN BELIEFS and 'confirmation biases' here you will, purposely, go out of your way to say things that are NONSENSICAL, ILLOGICAL, or SELF-CONTRADICTORY.
So it seems, and is why we are still to this day repeating over and over again using words, what it is we are trying to show each other, because it's very difficult to put into words...not that it's impossible...

By the way, what I say does appear to you to be NONSENSICAL, ILLOGICAL, or SELF-CONTRADICTORY...is perfect CLARITY to me here...so think what you like, as it will make no difference to what I know and experience as truth here in my mind.
I just did what you did the other day here "dontaskme", that is; I wrote a reply, a fairly lengthy one, and lost it. I leaned over and the lap top switched off.

We will see if I respond to this one again or not.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Philosophical discussion

Post by Walker »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:51 pmThe mind that constructed this plastic matter has never been seen.
You seem to be seeking a photograph of, “mind.”

Have you found one of, “wind?”

Legos are to mind as dust particulates are to wind.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Philosophical discussion

Post by Walker »

Age wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 11:28 pm... a fairly lengthy one, and lost it.
That could be an advice from the great beyond to continue exploring the pithy-message method. :|
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Philosophical discussion

Post by Walker »

Just as wind is an agent of chaos leading to entropy, as a natural function …

Intelligence is an agent of mind leading to order, a function as natural as the energetic ways of electrons always seeking balance.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Philosophical discussion

Post by Dontaskme »

Walker wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 4:07 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:51 pmThe mind that constructed this plastic matter has never been seen.
You seem to be seeking a photograph of, “mind.”

Have you found one of, “wind?”

Legos are to mind as dust particulates are to wind.
Fascinating! :roll: as usual I have no idea what you are going on about.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Philosophical discussion

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 11:28 pm
I just did what you did the other day here "dontaskme", that is; I wrote a reply, a fairly lengthy one, and lost it. I leaned over and the lap top switched off.

We will see if I respond to this one again or not.
But I did not lean on my computer to lose everything I'd written. I just pressed the submit button and got defaulted back to the login page. So I lost everything.

This has happened to me before, I think it's because if you take too long to post something, the forum automatically times you out, I'm not really sure, anyway, from now on I'm only going to respond to one point at a time, that way I won't get timed out hopefully. But yeah, it's a bummer when you've spent ages typing some carefully crafted ideas out only to lose it all, and it's like you can't ever recreate exactly what you said in quite the exact same way all over again, well I can't anyway.


.
Age
Posts: 20196
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophical discussion

Post by Age »

Walker wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 4:16 pm
Age wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 11:28 pm... a fairly lengthy one, and lost it.
That could be an advice from the great beyond to continue exploring the pithy-message method. :|
WHY do you ASSUME that there is or has been ANY 'pithy-message method' AT ALL?

What, by the way, is 'pithy-message method', to you, EXACTLY?

will you provide ANY examples?

And, have you ever considered just asking me ANY CLARIFYING questions about the method or way I write BEFORE ASSUMING ANY thing at all?
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Philosophical discussion

Post by Walker »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:37 pm
Walker wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 4:07 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 8:51 pmThe mind that constructed this plastic matter has never been seen.

Legos are to mind as dust particulates are to wind.
Fascinating! :roll: as usual I have no idea what you are going on about.
Your first step understanding could begin with considering the definition of, “analogy.”
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Philosophical discussion

Post by Walker »

Belinda wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 12:02 pm
Age wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:05 pm
Walker wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:00 am
“Papa's faith is people
Mama she believes in cleaning
Papa's faith is in people
Mama she's always cleaning
Papa brought home the sugar
Mama taught me the deeper meaning”
- Joni Mitchell


Comment:
The deeper meaning is found in the causes, effects and implications of cleaning (order, and ordering.)
Creation of order. Preservation of order. Destruction of order.
This causes all movement in the universe, even the “mechanics of matter,” referenced by Weil.
Each is necessary for the other.
Therefore, EXACTLY, as I have been SAYING and POINTING OUT, ALREADY.
Is the "deeper meaning" the task that you do or is it the feelings of the people for whom you do the task?
From the context of the verse we can see that the deeper meaning is the order established by doing. Why? Mamma is being contrasted with Papa. Papa’s faith is people so he would be more concerned with feelings, which is not to say that Mama is unfeeling.
Age
Posts: 20196
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Philosophical discussion

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:48 pm
Age wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 11:28 pm
I just did what you did the other day here "dontaskme", that is; I wrote a reply, a fairly lengthy one, and lost it. I leaned over and the lap top switched off.

We will see if I respond to this one again or not.
But I did not lean on my computer to lose everything I'd written. I just pressed the submit button and got defaulted back to the login page. So I lost everything.
Yes I know. I read what you wrote. I just said that I did what you did, that is; lost everything that I wrote. Just like you did.

I then went on to explain that I just lost my writings in a different way than you did.
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:48 pm This has happened to me before, I think it's because if you take too long to post something, the forum automatically times you out, I'm not really sure, anyway, from now on I'm only going to respond to one point at a time, that way I won't get timed out hopefully.

Did you read where I wrote that, 'What I found is if you just click on the 'Preview' or 'Submit' tabs, once more, then your writings will appear?

When I have a few times previously clicked on 'Preview' or 'Submit' nothing has come up, but when I click on again, then my writings do appear. This has happened when I have walked away for a while and come back to finish a response. There must be some time limit thing with it, but I have always got my writings back from that by just clicking again.
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:48 pm But yeah, it's a bummer when you've spent ages typing some carefully crafted ideas out only to lose it all, and it's like you can't ever recreate exactly what you said in quite the exact same way all over again, well I can't anyway.


.
I certainly can NOT either.
Post Reply