do not get chummy with me punk ahh the pathetic attempt to disengage maggot, there is no escape in here
brainless You certainly seem to be full if sh!t.. I'll bet that if you really concentrated, you could find better, perhaps more... 'grown-up' names to call me? why? i do as i please maggot My simple question, before you got all emotional, was how did you turn 'beliefs' into 'facts. I answered your post quite thoroughly (despite the humor that you seem unable to see). You neglected everything that I said that shed light on your apparent delusion to call me names. ahh, the delusional spin. perhaps you actually believe that out of control rant consisted of just light and sophisticated humor OK, feel free to razor away all the extraneous BS (misunderstood humor) and reply to the 'meat'. the megalomaniac now gives me permission to reply Or call me more names. sure. motherfucking punkass ho But, please, go to the 'loo' first? open wide bitch. i'ma gonna piss on you. I'm almost tempted to apologise for my razor wit and bloody sarcasm, but, in all honesty (you asked for it!), it felt a bit 'cathartic' as at the moment my patience with BS, and those brimming with it is at a very low ebb. i do not give a rats ass about your sensibilties. nor do i accept your rationalization that i am to blame for this turn of events Besides, why do you take what I say seriously enough to get yourself all bent out of shape? Just words from a stranger. mind your own fuckin business did i not tell you not to get chummy with me? ok, I apologise for the 'nasty'. shove the apology up yer ass I'll return when I feel better... live or die maggot it is not of any concern to me
Hmm.. from reading the first few paragraphs I offer the following: "reality" as he puts it is the the "tao" as I put it. I offer the term "inreality" (unless someone has a better offer) as a label for the invidual's idea of what reality is. Is there already a term for that which I've missed? Anyway, this might help me to be more clear in future conversations related to all that.
Hehe, actually I agree. I'd even say that's the end of the trap I didn't cover in the OP, but did in subsequent posts buried somewhere in the thread. I think I called it "divergence of ego". Like I said at first, something about the trap itself keeping you balanced if you keep it in mind. IMO, the only potential sanity lies between divergence of ego and its total evaporation. Oh and I just finished the article, it's good stuff. Right on topic. I personally however, have a problem with the term "illusion" in that context, because subjectively - it isn't illusion at all, but it's necessarly valuable information regarding one's circumstance and how to interact with it. Speaking objectively though, illusion is an appropriate term I guess, but it seems to me damned near impossible to actually speak objectively, as the two terms together become an oxymoron.
I still don't understand your (apparently 'over') 'valuation' of 'sanity'. Perhaps mine has been missing for so long that i have gotten used to life without it? And, oh, the sights! *__-
Hehe.. well man I dunno. Sanity is a good thing to me, it takes a long winded, likely annoying mental bowel movement to explain why... so I won't bother. I could perhaps sum it up as "I see myself partly as a protector", as I have family, etc. Hm... also I think sanity is perhaps imperative to understanding, as without it, there will always be forbidden places in one's mind.
brainless There is not one 'concept' rattling around in your pointy little head that identifies anything except more of what might be in your head. You show me one of your 'desperate facts' and I'll show you that it is a subjective fiction having sole existence in your head Ahhhh, your senses and mind and subsequent beliefs is the ultimate arbiter of ultimate 'objective reality'? Yeah, yeah... ALL CONCEPTUAL!! WITHIN YOUR OWN HEADFULL OF CONCEPTS WHICH YOU (egoically, emotionally) ERRONEOUSLY BELIEVE TO BE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE REALITY as a validation of your own shaky 'belief system'! now where is it i claim..... that "these facts" correspond to an objective reality ie: it is true for me so it must be true for you Axiomatic concepts identify primary, irreducible facts of reality. As primaries these facts can not be broken down to other, more basic facts--they lie at the absolute base level, the beginning. They are not proved by reference to other facts, but are the basis of proof itself. They are the fundamentally given, directly experienced, and thus are validated in and of themselves. Peikoff puts it concisely, saying "Axioms are *perceptual self-evidencies*. There is nothing to be said in their behalf except: Look at reality." (Peikoff, 1991, p.8) The vital epistemological task that axiomatic concepts perform is the explicit, conceptual iden- tification of these basic facts. this quote neither indicates the concepts are necessarily universal when something is said to be "perceptual self-evidencies ," it is apparent that it is subjective in nature now again how does this translate to an "ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE REALITY" (brainless)
ahh yes ott the mystical sage When we ask ourselves what will be our future, we are really asking what will be our behaviors, what will interest us and what will occupy our time. In this sense, all creatures have spirit. If we could identify a creature with spirit similar to ours, but more evolved with respect to this spirit than us, then we might foresee our future. The most important characteristic defining human spirit, I believe, is that we are social creatures who seek to manipulate our environment. So what species are our spiritual mates? The ants. I call using the model of the ants as a vision of future humanity, the Myrmex Paradigm. ott an immutable and universal law...retards invariably gravitate towards one another
This thread is reall falling apart, eh? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Where did you find that definition? I've done a lot of discussion with atheists that refused to agree they have beliefs..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yaba Daba :m:
I guess that we would have to come to some consensus of the meaning of sanity. We are obviously discussing different things. It could well be appropriate to this thread, but I don't know how 'fruitful'. One can be 'not-sane', as per my understanding and experience, and still care for the family, etc... I'm not necessarilly talking about clinical psychotic breaks, necessarilly, but more like relinquishing the consensus 'world-view', and comfortable attachment to same. I think 'control' or the 'illusion' of control, 'self' control, might be a part of the definition (that would relate to your 'protector' comment). Perhaps a 'weaving in and out', partly creating/living one's dream, partly exploring/being the nether reaches of 'consciousness', the 'Gates of Tao', and still returning to the dream... Perhaps with a bit more 'understanding', perhaps..
Ah but of course. Fruitful to what end? I enjoy conversations on the matter, and wouldn't mind delving in if you want. I still need to address your long post from before. I've been gaming all weekend except for the family time and painting my front porch a bit. Hmm.. yeah now that I think about it though, maybe sanity wasn't the right way to word the original phrase about it. What I'm referring to is a self-idealized notion that would preclude a whole big chunk of people that would by any current pyschological test, be perfectly sane as you note. Divergence of ego is pervasive amongst societies in that many, many people take themselves way, WAY too seriously as I see it. I'm pretty sure I understand for the most part the basic reasons they do so. Maybe "to be fully grounded" was what I was looking for or something along those lines. No. No I got it now. It was "to have a healthy ego". I was basically just repeating myself in thinking I'd seen an equivalence between terms. There's perhaps a relation, but not exactly an equivalence eh? I think of it as some percent of conceptual continuity. Somewhat of a weighted thing depending on its context in basis of the relationships of your conceptual inter-relationships. I see certain points as critical to the stucture. If they fail in there function of facilitating thought or if they excessively strain the emotional network related to thoughts in the now, irrational behavior becomes more likely. Irrational behavior randomly disperses the re-enforcement for the nodes in the inter-relationships mentioned before into positives and negatives that if for instance they continued randomly long enough, the entire system would have no continuity whatsoever and as such, provide no use to the host. The inreality generator in our heads would presumable model reality in such a manner as to, in the optimal case - increase our chances of survival as we percieve it. The mechanims however, are mechanically squishy in a number of ways. Reality itself is meaningless because it IS all the potential data in the universe, which while remaining in the state of being "unprocessed", cannot have meaning. The mind gives it order by abstracting aspects of it as they pertain to its continued existence (interests, percieved circumstance). Reality transforms from "potentially infinite information" to "realized, relevant information" within inreality via mind and stimulous. It's a storage buffer for abstractions which feeback into reality through a complicated feedback loop that changes shape on the fly to compensate for the information being currently gathered. I hypothesize the structure is imprinted on the space where the electron goes when it "winks out of existence" until it comes back in, probably by the electron coming back in now that I think about it. Could it be that simple? Goddamn I'm rambling somethin fierce here. Should there be a name for that space? I guess it's just "probability space"? I call it abstract space. I don't think it's an illusion, but a fundamental aspect of the universe. Then again, maybe that part of it is an illusion. *smirk* The physical structure isn't really an illusion in real time, as there are elements of the brain that physically connected to faciliate the processing. The abstract structure is reflective of the physical structure to a large extent (that would be tough to flesh out I'd guess). If that's true, it's no illusion... but it may not correlate to anything you or I might think of as relevant or true. Either way, reading that created a cool picture in my head. Thanks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not unless you feel a calling, dude. I've forgotten all about it. Water under the bridge.. Casino? Hmm.. yeah now that I think about it though, maybe sanity wasn't the right way to word the original phrase about it. For me either. Sanity is such a 'legal' term and that is not the paradigm in which I wanted to use the word. How about Madness as in 'out-of-one's-mind'? No. No I got it now. It was "to have a healthy ego". I was basically just repeating myself in thinking I'd seen an equivalence between terms. There's perhaps a relation, but not exactly an equivalence eh? Healthy ego huh? Trying to maintain a 'healthy ego', whatever that is, seems like trying to hold together two 'neg' ends of strong magnets. With effort, one can stay within certain 'bounds' with difficulty. Thats my experience anyway. I think of it as some percent of conceptual continuity. Somewhat of a weighted thing depending on its context in basis of the relationships of your conceptual inter-relationships. You seem to be describing 'life' here, very nicely. Dream reality. *__- I see certain points as critical to the stucture. If they fail in there function of facilitating thought or if they excessively strain the emotional network related to thoughts in the now, irrational behavior becomes more likely. Irrational behavior randomly disperses the re-enforcement for the nodes in the inter-relationships mentioned before into positives and negatives that if for instance they continued randomly long enough, the entire system would have no continuity whatsoever and as such, provide no use to the host. BY CONTINUITY, YOU REFER TO THE PRIMARY ILLUSION OF 'TIME' NECESSARY FOR THE EVISTENCE OF ANYTHING ELSE SUCH AS QUARKS AND TITS! The inreality generator in our heads would presumable model reality in such a manner as to, in the optimal case - increase our chances of survival as we percieve it. PERPATUATE THE DREAM, PLAY THE GAME The mechanims however, are mechanically squishy in a number of ways. SQUISHY BECAUSE THE MECHANISMS ARE PART OF THE DREAM ALSO Reality itself is meaningless because it IS all the potential data in the universe, CHAOS, THE 'REALITY' UNDERLYING 'DREAM REALITY', which while remaining in the state of being "unprocessed", cannot have meaning. OF COURSE NOT. MEANING TO WHOM? The mind gives it order by abstracting aspects of it as they pertain to its continued existence (interests, percieved circumstance). Reality transforms from "potentially infinite information" to "realized, relevant information" within inreality via mind and stimulous. YES YES YES YES YES!!! It's a storage buffer for abstractions which feeback into reality through a complicated feedback loop that changes shape on the fly to compensate for the information being currently gathered. I hypothesize the structure is imprinted on the space where the electron goes when it "winks out of existence" until it comes back in, probably by the electron coming back in now that I think about it. WHAT IS THE TRICK FOR AN 'ELECTRON' TO WINK INTO A 'DREAM' AND THEN WINK OUT? IT'S NOT LIKE IT HAD ANY 'EXISTENCE' IN OR OUT OF THE 'DREAM' OF CONSCIOUSNESS. Could it be that simple? THE TAO IS SIMPLE, ALL 'ELSE' IS COMPLEX! Goddamn I'm rambling somethin fierce here. Should there be a name for that space? NO, LETS NOT KILL ANOTHER FREE CREATURE! DEATH BY DEFINITION! LIFE IS THE POWER OF TRANSFORMATION AND DEFINITION IS PETRIFICATION! I guess it's just "probability space"? TAO! QUANTUM CHAOS! BUT THERE CAN, OF COURSE, BE NO 'ACTUAL' SPACE INVOLVED, AS EVEN 'SPACE' IS HOLOGRAPHIC DREAM-STUFF. I call it abstract space. I don't think it's an illusion, but a fundamental aspect of the universe. GODDAMN, WES, THOUGH I'D USE DIFFERENT WORDS AND METAPHOR, I RECOGNIZE WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING. PERHAPS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT 'VIEW' OF THE SAME 'UNDERSTANDING' THAT I HAVE 'FOUND'. CONSCIOUSNESS TOUCHES THE CHAOS OF 'POSSIBILITIES' AND 'REALITY', A UNIVERSE, IS CREATED OF THIS 'STUFF' IN A HOLOGRAPHIC FASHION (INDRA'S NET) AS DREAM WITHIN MIND WITHIN CONSCIOUSNESS. NOTHING EVER ACTUALLY ACHIEVES WHAT IS COMMONLY AND IGNORANTLY CALLED 'OBJECTIVE REALITY'. Then again, maybe that part of it is an illusion. EVERYTHING IS PART OF THE FICTION WITHIN MIND, THE DREAM OF LIFE. *smirk* The physical structure isn't really an illusion in real time, as there are elements of the brain that physically connected to faciliate the processing. TEMPORAL ERROR. TEMPORAL ERROR. THERE IS NO 'REAL TIME', CONSCIOUSNESS CASTS ITS GLANCE AT A 'POSSIBILITY WAVE FUNCTION' AND IT COLLAPSES INTO A DREAM/HOLOGRAM OF THE 'CONCEPT' OF TIME'. PERHAPS ANOTHER WAVE FUNCTION WILL COLLAPSE INTO A HOLOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF SOLID MATTER WITHIN 'OBSERVING CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS. ALL OF 'CREATION' IS 'CREATED WITHIN MIND MANIFESTING TO OUR CONSCIOUSNESS AS THIS INSIDE OUT MOVIE THAT WE LIVE DAY TO DAY.The abstract structure is reflective of the physical structure to a large extent (that would be tough to flesh out I'd guess). LITERALLY, NOTHING THERE TO 'FLESH OUT'. If that's true, it's no illusion... EVERYTHING THAT IS TRUE IS ILLUSION. IT CAN ONLY BE THAT. but it may not correlate to anything you or I might think of as relevant or true. EVERYTHING THAT IS TRUE IS ILLUSION. Either way, reading that created a cool picture in my head. Thanks. Pleasure's mine. Your welcome.
my my nameless gets comfy and lovey dovey with wesmorris gay love blossoms once again in sciforums so ah nameless.......where is the claim?
Hey Gus, in case you havent figured it out, you are the sole inhabitant of my ignore list. Perhaps you'll not want to waste your, and everyone else's, time? Wes, would you agree that, for all intents and purposes, the exact formation of an individual's 'memory' is subjectively unique? If so, then here's a bit of a quote from Krishna Menon: "Memory is the one thing that creates the whole world, and memory is the last link that connects one with the phenomenal world. If memory is understood to be nothing but a thought, which in turn is nothing but pure Consciousness – the Self – then memory, and the world with it, is merged into the Self." *__-
