Jamesh versus DHodges

[Jamesh]

Jamesh just stated the only intelligent thing I've seen here since I visited.

DavidH:

Really? I was thinking it was too hopelessly confused to even properly respond to it.

I want to take you on about this comment.

Please state where I am confused.

I realise I am not a fundamentalist delusional fuckwit like David, who completely relies only on what he already has contained within his head and cannot learn anything new. There is no way he is enlightened, he is merely just another religious clown who relies on NO ANSWERS for his answers. He says as the totality is the totality then I do not need to examine anything else, therfore I can be satisfied my knowledge is complete.

In this regard he is a fucking goose (but not in other ways).
I know for a fact that I have surpassed his knowledge of reality by a significant degree, even though I am not some imaginary enlightened person. He is a fucking religious nut, just like all the others -because he THINKS he is enlightened, when I can logically say that he is not a budha.

One can easily see David's limitation - he has become unable to learn new things. His emotional pride that is attached to his existing beliefs hamper him to a considerable degree. Quite frankly I know that he can be ignored.

I am only more aware of the causes reality than others, thougfh i admit that is only a matter of degree. Such reality is only achieved conceptually, which the supposed enlightened folk of the past failed to achieve - becuase they stupidly denied empirical knowledge - the only knowlege we can have.

[Ryan Rudolph]

actually I'll let you two handle this.

[DHodges]

I want to take you on about this comment.

You seem to be taking it very personally.

Please state where I am confused.

You may or may not be confused, but I couldn't make heads or tails of what you wrote, really. For instance, what do these bits mean?

Things are real because they add a property to the underlying dimensions of nature.

The infinities are not empty of form, they are merely empty of form in the manner in which we can visualise, because they are outside our physical dimensions, outside of our plane of existence.

For my visualised infinities I am happy to choose what shows us why all things do not have inherent existence of their own making - they expand and they contract relative to all other things.

These bits are very unclear to me. The language is confused. The talk about dimensions and planes and whatnot seems like New Age gibberish. The expanding and contracting stuff sounds like Alfred Lawson with his zig-zag and swirl talk.

In the end, I can't tell if you are actually saying something or not, so I can't respond to it.

I realise I am not a fundamentalist delusional fuckwit like David, who completely relies only on what he already has contained within his head and cannot learn anything new. There is no way he is enlightened, he is merely just another religious clown who relies on NO ANSWERS for his answers.

I assume you are talking about David Quinn here, not me. Whatever his understanding is, it's pretty much irrelevant to whether what you are saying is confused, isn't it?

[unwise]

Great stuff here. Now we're getting somewhere.....