Death Is

[bert]

scott:
or this:
propositional forms are interferences from an 'as/or' synthetic composition,inferences of partitive semblances refrangible from both ends and equally correlative from any 'inbetween' ratio to either end.

[unwise]

In letting go our meaning, in letting ourselves go, we hazard chance, we revel in it, make it our own. We were always philosophers, dancers, drummers. Wisdom loved us from the beginning. We cannot remember crawling! Above cloud, above platitudes, who wouldn't accuse us of them?

Is that a quote from Woody Allen's 'A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy?'

[suergaz]

We may be everyone and no-one, but...well...It's oberonian, let's leave it at that.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Leyla's a piritical match alright.

[Jason]

Jason: I'm not sure why you underlined "prove", is it just for emphasis, or are you suggesting that there is something other than proof that can make philosophical ideas valid/true?

sschaula: Emphasis. Something is only proven if it's undeniable. You can deny everything in this world. You can deny gravity!

Yet, when you drop an apple from up high, it'll still fall. There seems to be gravity, whatever it is, so I believe in it.

So you don't need proof for your philosophy? You don't mind if parts of your philosophy are capable of being denied?

Jason: So you aren't certain that the domino effect is absolutely certain, you just believe it is because it seems to be? Is that what you're saying? You're content to advance your philosophy based on uncertainties?

sschaula: I don't comprimise truth for the advancement of my philosophy.

But you do compromise certainty for the advancement of your philosophy?

Jason: How do you know that it wasn't a perfectly timed gust of wind that moved the ball as opposed to the impact of the cue stick?

sschaula: Because it happens over and over.

Just like the gust of wind could happen over and over again.

sschaula: You can deny everything in this world, which is why I say you can't prove anything in this world. But you CAN prove things "out of this world"....absolute truth.

So what were you aiming for when you used domino-causation to undermine the ego? Couldn't have been absolute truth.

Jason: I'm not talking about quantum mechanics as my "gust of wind" example shows.

sschaulaWell, what are you talking about you tricky bastard?

I'm pointing out the uncertainty in your domino-causation idea. Without certainy you can't have absolutely certain truth. If you're after absolutely certain truth say goodbye to your undermining of the ego using domino-causation.

sschaula: You think gusts of wind appear everytime something moves? Where does your gust of wind come from...what causes it? Things don't just APPEAR from nothing, they only seem to.

I'm interested in certainty, so I'm not interested in replacing your uncertain idea about why the billiard balls act as they do, with just another uncertain idea. I used the gusts of wind theory just to show the uncertainty of your idea.

[sschaula]

Steven wrote,

Scott,

What does this statement mean to you:

I am in the clouds.

Or, this,

The orange crescent moon preceded my despair.

What it means to me is that you're placing too much emphasis on things that can mean pretty much anything. "I am in the clouds" could mean a multitude of things. One thing could be that you were in an airplane while typing that on your laptop. It could mean that you think your subtle body has travelled up to the clouds. It could mean you identify with the clouds. It could mean that it's foggy out.

I don't like Zen type things becuase of this. Zen Koans are just like this. It's a small story and you're supposed to make sense of how it doesn't make sense. Sometimes you can come to a realization of something, but most of them are just for confusing the mind. A person can give a correct answer, and still be told they're wrong and to keep thinking.

"I am in the clouds" can mean so many things that it doesn't mean much of anything to me.

"The orange crescent moon preceded my despair" is also the same way. It could mean that the moon was there before you were born. It could mean that the moon was in part a creator of your despair.

Who knows the meaning of such statements? You can pull apart small sentences to derive any meaning you want.

I wonder, why are you asking me what these two statements mean to me? I'm really curious if there's something I could understand from taking these two statements to mean anything important.

[sschaula]

Jason,

So you don't need proof for your philosophy? You don't mind if parts of your philosophy are capable of being denied?

I do need proof, and there's an abundance of proof. What you're doing is taking the proof that I see and saying, "Your hypothesis isn't the case." I admit, maybe you're right, but there's so much proof that I don't mind believing in this.

I don't mind that parts of my philosophy can be denied. I do mind if I'm wrong...there's a difference.

But you do compromise certainty for the advancement of your philosophy?

How can you be certain of the way things work?

Just like the gust of wind could happen over and over again.

Okay, I'll admit that could be the case. Everytime I hit a cue ball into other balls on a pool table, a gust of wind could cause a reaction to happen, making the balls scatter. Yet I have no proof there's a gust of wind.

What would make me say that pool balls scattering is directly caused by a gust of wind?

So what were you aiming for when you used domino-causation to undermine the ego? Couldn't have been absolute truth.

...

I'm pointing out the uncertainty in your domino-causation idea. Without certainy you can't have absolutely certain truth. If you're after absolutely certain truth say goodbye to your undermining of the ego using domino-causation.

You're saying the ego can't be undermined by believing in something false? I think it can. Where's your proof that it can't?

I don't think that causation is false, though. There's no other sensible explaination for the way things come about. Not like you need an explaination to know that the ego is false, though.

I'm interested in certainty, so I'm not interested in replacing your uncertain idea about why the billiard balls act as they do, with just another uncertain idea. I used the gusts of wind theory just to show the uncertainty of your idea.

So there's no certain idea about the way things happen? Good...we agree.

Are you saying you don't use cause and effect in day to day life? If you drive a car, do you not put your foot on the gas because that cause won't have the effect of acceleration? Do you not use light switches because you believe that the light being turned on isn't caused by that?

[R. Steven Coyle]

I wonder, why are you asking me what these two statements mean to me? I'm really curious if there's something I could understand from taking these two statements to mean anything important.

You expressed doubt [over poetic expression]. I was up to tickling your nose, for a good sneeze.

I am in the clouds.

Wherever the mind goes, there it is.

The orange crescent moon preceded my despair.

The sound of one hand clapping; universal causal trust; knowing.

[R. Steven Coyle]

I wasn't intending on bragging, but maybe I did.

[goes for an apple]

[sschaula]

I still don't know what you're talking about.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Reality is always your own mind.

The ego wants to latch onto to a lasting form.

Direct perception is the goal.

[Leyla Shen]

Marsha wrote:

I believe in mercy if it can be given. I expect no mercy and I have received none.

Me too. That’s why I always assume that every human is at least potentially capable of reason. Of course, I could be wrong about this -- but that’s a chance I have decided to take. So, when a human does not demonstrate reason, sometimes there’s no more divine mercy possible than demonstrating what reason isn’t. What, they think they're the only ones capable of unreason?

Who knows, maybe both her and my son learned something of mercy and their capacity to reason that morning. Maybe they learned to be a little more conscious.

I don’t think that approach would have the same effect on hogs, though. So, I would not get out of my car and ask one to show some courtesy the next time he tried to cross the road -- not unless he was wearing sunglasses, driving a car and blaming me for the lot in which he finds himself, that is.

[suergaz]

You must still be a little rattled! When faced with one who cannot demonstrate reason, there is never reason to demonstrate unreason.

;D

[Leyla Shen]

You're right. I wasn't unreasonable at all!

[suergaz]

Behind that car though, was another, and behind that, another, a chain down the lane which you broke. :D

[Leyla Shen]

Steven,

L: Man, you're hard work.

S: Me?

Yes, you. Unlike you, when I say “you,” I mean you. I don’t mean me, or the me in your head you think is you -- or the you in my head you think I think is you but is really me. I just mean you. But I figure you still won’t know who you are and therefore who I mean when I say “you.”

L: Why, then, do you insist on a distinction (a beginning and an end) between you and I -- you cowering to my mode of expression and alluding to the possibility that you can gain respect from me -- in the same breath as accusing me of not understanding the idea in question?

S: I still have a mind. The illusion of separateness is only that, in and of itself.

I see. So, given the context:

Since all of creation is experienced solely within our own mind, the conclusion may be reached: We are everything. Non-duality is thus acheived, and the flux of Nature is our very own.

The illusion of “we are everything” then is also only that, in and of itself.

One hell of a way to say absolutely nothing!

[Leyla Shen]

zag, the "flow" (meaning there really wasn't much of one aside from a constant stop-start one with a short break here and there) of the line was insignificantly affected by our little interruption to it. I wouldn't worry about that part of it too much.

There could have been many more there with something to learn than I originally thought, however. Then again, I could have got myself into some really personally dangerous position. But, I am accustomed to those, as well. Are you?

[R. Steven Coyle]

L: Man, you're hard work.

S: Me?

L: Yes, you. Unlike you, when I say “you,” I mean you. I don’t mean me, or the me in your head you think is you -- or the you in my head you think I think is you but is really me. I just mean you. But I figure you still won’t know who you are and therefore who I mean when I say “you.”

That was a joke.

Like, "Me?" -- meaning, "Your not so bad yourself."

S: Since all of creation is experienced solely within our own mind, the conclusion may be reached: We are everything. Non-duality is thus acheived, and the flux of Nature is our very own.

L: The illusion of “we are everything” then is also only that, in and of itself.

One hell of a way to say absolutely nothing!

"We are everything" implies thought-perception.

There is also creative reading, Leyla.

[suergaz]

Yes. It makes me wonder how many physical fights you've been in before Leyla! Not many guns about-- fisticuffs are real enough.

[Leyla Shen]

Steven wrote:

There is also creative reading, Leyla.

Now that’s what I call funny.

What a cop out -- and with no shame! But, it at least shows some sign of honest introspection.

Steven, hello? We’re on a philosophy forum. I don’t think philosophy is about looking at someone’s pretty words and sentences and “creatively reading” them.

[Leyla Shen]

zag,

It makes me wonder how many physical fights you've been in before Leyla! Not many guns about-- fisticuffs are real enough.

Plenty enough to have good timing in tune with a sharp eye on the immediate vicinity.

I’ve had my nose broken once in an unfriendly, and my thigh slashed in a “friendly.” Apart from that, I’ve fare very well strategically and tactically. I have also escaped the clutches of a man who could have broken my neck with the snap of his finger.

Reason. Can’t beat it. And, if you bear with me just a little longer, I'll return the discussion to the intended focus on ego soon.

[suergaz]

We're on a genius forum. Allowing expression and interpreting it favourably belongs as much to philosophy as taking it apart to allow more.

[suergaz]

How do you get your thigh slashed in a play-fight?! When learning how to knife fight, I always used sticks!

You are a pirate!

[R. Steven Coyle]

Phish: Guelah Papyrus

Aboard a craft bereft of oar

I rowed upstream to find Lenore

Abducted by a bandit or

A king from some forgotten war


And mindful of his larval craze

The rhinotropic micro-gaze

Ignored it and to my amazement

Rode to Paris in twelve days


This is the work of the Guelah Papyrus

Stranded for a moment on the ocean of Osyrus

Absorbing all she can for every member of her clan

Expanding exponentially like some recursive virus


She take me on, I never fail

To ride on the redundant rail

'Cause when I know she's switched a track

There's always one to take me back


And through the bedroom door intrude

A fretful frown and spoil the mood

'Cause though I never really stand that tall

She tilt my frame, she watch me fall

[Leyla Shen]

zag wrote:

We're on a genius forum. Allowing expression and interpreting it favourably belongs as much to philosophy as taking it apart to allow more.

Fair enough. Go ahead, I await your favourable interpretation of nothing with bated breath. Or was that it?

How do you get your thigh slashed in a play-fight?! When learning how to knife fight, I always used sticks!

You are a pirate!

No, no. You were closer the first time. But there must be a pirate in every Wendy story -- unless you believe in fairy tales.

Was more like a pecking-order fight, really. I got my thigh slashed by being shoved against a sharp piece of steel sticking out from a locker that had been vandalised. That’s what happens when you have a very strong headlock but you don’t take advantage of the situation quickly enough -- and the person you have in it is big enough to lift you off the ground just that little bit.