Existence is imperfect and unsatisfactory

That Sri Sri Sri is full of shit, he's thinking in concepts.
I can create a concept-name called world is "supermegaultracool" and then say "Existence in EVERY realm is utterly supermegaultracool ... to the limits of infinite supermegaultracoolness -- it is called SELF-G-spotting. (SELF=Infinite supermegaultracoolthing)"
- Sri Sri Sri Avatar Guru Ommm

Take a clue from Dzogchen: conceptual thinking is not realization.
Concepts are created by the minds of men, they do not encase objective reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You completely misunderstood, raising the question of whether you are really grounded enough for your ideas to be useful to anyone. Nor did you answer my questions.

Your idea is like the drizzle, hardly enough to give sustenance.

It's just a tired rehashing of neo-eastern phil. My hope is that you mean it ironically or as a spoof, and while this is supported by 'Fukkamee' you need to turn up the text a notch. It's too flat. If it is meant as satire, it is too tame.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How do you decide which posts to respond to with this position and which ones not to?

What use is a discussion forum, given what you said?

(I mean, I agree in relation to the Swami, whose ideas probably function sort of like a sexual fantasy for him, only less interesting.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I actualy googled that! :bugeye:
But all the hits referred to geneps' threads here, and one to some site with sexual content, I didn't click that link.

The temptation to play the proverbial Zen master is very, very strong.

I think it's up to us to resist other people's indulging in temptations.

 

For socialization. For fun. For learning about new facts and ideas.

 

Avatar, could you please answer this question?

 

I have no idea. My time on the internet is limited, I just answer the first post I see like replying to.

 

I don't think you understood the question.

Apart from the fact that what you said here is conceptual thinking it should apply to nearly every on topic post in the Philosophy forums. So why did it seem appropriate in this context? And I suppose I am heading towards....why participate in philosophy forums, or even sciforums, other than in a social manner, if this is what you believe?

 

To exercise thinking a bit. I'm not seeking any revelations here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I guess I will take this as a concept you have about yourself and not objective reality.

 

I don't get what you want to hear from me. Humans don't know and can't fully perceive objective reality.

 

Well, that has a lot of implicit conceptual ideas about objective realitiy - ie. the nature of humans, what perception is, the nature of objective reality and so on.

My point, Avatar, was

that when you said this, you said it in a way that sounded like a general rule. I do believe fukkamee is hot air. However, it seems to me your critique could be aimed at pretty much every post in the philosophy section and, really, most of the other sections as well at sciforums. Including most of your own posts. Hence my question.

I just did a random search of your posts. Here are a few of the first ones that came up:

This seems to me both conceptual and an attempt to 'encase objective reality.'

as do

and your response to coberst with his quotes. You are in bold.

More attempts to encase reality it seems to me in conceptual thinking.

 

Since when does humanity lives only in accordance with the rules of objective reality?
There's much more to the experience of human life than E=MC^2.

It sure can, and I mean it.

Conceptual thinking is important, especially when living in a society, but it's bullshit when people try to wrap their brain around the universe, because the universe doesn't consist of concepts.

 

So you really meant

to be a criticism of attempts to encase ALL of objective reality, but conceptual thinking to encase parts of it is OK and even useful?

If so, now I understand and am not confused by your remark.

 

Generally yes. Concepts are no good to describe the natural world.
A flower is not beautiful, it just is. Beauty is a concept of the mind.
And when we experience "beauty", we're not really experiencing "beauty", but something unspeakable that can not be put into words.
But we do because it is convenient and makes socializing easier.

 

green and so

you two are beginning to scare the shit outta me
but i like it

 

I always took the word 'beauty' to be about something that was not easy to encapsulate. If someone says that something is beautiful it has never functioned for me like, for example, cobalt-blue does. I think you are underestimating language and its users.

This is not to say that we don't get fooled by language or overuse conceptual thinking, etc. We certainly do. I actually think 'beauty' is one of the safer words, at least in my circles, because it is very open ended, does not give me an image. It has 'mystery' tucked into it.

As far as the 'concept of the mind' it seems to me many seemingly flat descriptive words fall into this category, even, or perhaps most dangerously, flat, seemingly concrete words like red and distant, have so much to do with minds and perception, yet we are far more likely to take them as objective than beauty.

 

Come out and play. Make your own films with us, Pauline Kael.
And thank you.

 

Woohoo!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

EXACTLY: Not even GOD could have put your misunderstandings more clearly -- really really: you project YOUR stupidity to be the stupidity of others.

In Physics one observer sees a particle and another sees the same thing as a wave – and thus Physics' gives us an ABSOLUTE: the observer determines the OBSERVATION -- never what is observed.

So TOO with wisdom/ignorance – the Observer determines what is ignorance and what is wisdom ...

so Tooooo with what appears to be a fog and what appears to be “real.” To an Enlightened Soul what appears rock solid and real to the Masses appears, AT BEST, a fog to one who is AWAKE: SELF-Realized.

I suggest that the ego called "You" avoid "Eastern Philosophy" until you can somehow entertain the possibility that perhaps the greatest wisdom imaginable might just personify unmitigated STUPIDITY, BUULLSHIT . ...

EXACTLY like the Universe needs >>99% of the Universe to be hidden in Dark Matter so that <1% can appear rock solid and certain.
So too with truths and lies, wisdom and ignorance, fogs and reality.

As for: “Sri Sri Sri Bhagavan Vishnu Fukkamee Swami” --- it personifies all the UNMITIGATED buullshit experts and especially Sris and Gods need to appear important.

- Sri Sri Sri Bhagavan Vishnu Fukkamee Swami