Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by David Quinn »

RobertGreenSky wrote:
David Quinn wrote: Are you really saying that you can't think of a single truth which is true for both humans and donkeys, or for both humans and aliens from other worlds?

Look within. Your very own belief system is full of such truth-assertions.

Look within, yourself. Observe your failure to share anything true for humans, let alone donkeys. You imply there is such truth, but you do not share and prove your point ...

You provided a list yourself - e.g. all thinking is relative, fragmented, incapable of apprehending enlightenment, etc. These are things which you regard to be true of humans and donkeys, and presumably aliens from other worlds as well.

Some examples of truths that I know to be true of humans, donkeys and aliens include: that they are causally-created and lack inherent existence, that they are parts of the Totality, that their experiences and perceptions are finite (i.e. not inclusive of all that there is), that A always equals A, etc.

I did not assert that thinking was not useful in the 'pursuit' - Nagarjuna clearly states otherwise - and we must rely on thinking anyway. It is 'their opinion' that thought does not get it; if yours differs, we can of course compare the two positions, if you ever bother to really advance yours instead of wasting time implying I'm contradicting myself by merely sharing my thoughts.
The relationship between thought and enlightened reality is essentially no different to the relationship between thought and, say, the Grand Canyon. Thought, via planning and the execution of decisions, can take us to the Grand Canyon and allow us to experience the Grand Canyon directly. It can ferret us to the spot where the Grand Canyon resides and from there it is simply a matter of opening our eyes and appreciating it.

This is not to say that thought can capture the Grand Canyon, or apprehend it, or any nonsense like that. No one here is claiming that. When Nagarjuna counseled against over-stretching thought beyond its limits, he was simply battling against nonsensical claims of that kind.

In turn, I am, at this very moment, battling against the nonsensical claim that thought cannot take us to the spot where Reality "resides".

It is essentially the same exercise that Nagarjuna engaged in. He and I are one in this - that of battling nonsense.

-
User avatar
RobertGreenSky
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by RobertGreenSky »

David Quinn wrote:
RobertGreenSky wrote:
David Quinn wrote: Are you really saying that you can't think of a single truth which is true for both humans and donkeys, or for both humans and aliens from other worlds?

Look within. Your very own belief system is full of such truth-assertions.

Look within, yourself. Observe your failure to share anything true for humans, let alone donkeys. You imply there is such truth, but you do not share and prove your point ...

You provided a list yourself - e.g. all thinking is relative, fragmented, incapable of apprehending enlightenment, etc. These are things which you regard to be true of humans and donkeys, and presumably aliens from other worlds as well.

Some examples of truths that I know to be true of humans, donkeys and aliens include: that they are causally-created and lack inherent existence, that they are parts of the Totality, that their experiences and perceptions are finite (i.e. not inclusive of all that there is), that A always equals A, etc.

I did not assert that thinking was not useful in the 'pursuit' - Nagarjuna clearly states otherwise - and we must rely on thinking anyway. It is 'their opinion' that thought does not get it; if yours differs, we can of course compare the two positions, if you ever bother to really advance yours instead of wasting time implying I'm contradicting myself by merely sharing my thoughts.
The relationship between thought and enlightened reality is essentially no different to the relationship between thought and, say, the Grand Canyon. Thought, via planning and the execution of decisions, can take us to the Grand Canyon and allow us to experience the Grand Canyon directly. It can ferret us to the spot where the Grand Canyon resides and from there it is simply a matter of opening our eyes and appreciating it.

This is not to say that thought can capture the Grand Canyon, or apprehend it, or any nonsense like that. No one here is claiming that. When Nagarjuna counseled against over-stretching thought beyond its limits, he was simply battling against nonsensical claims of that kind.

In turn, I am, at this very moment, battling against the nonsensical claim that thought cannot take us to the spot where Reality "resides".

It is essentially the same exercise that Nagarjuna engaged in. He and I are one in this - that of battling nonsense.

-
I hope I'm not being nonsensical. It appears from the first item I should have suggested you have not shared any absolute truth - none where I could be certain you were doing so - rather than that you have not shared any (conventional) truth. I hope you will make it clear whether your use of 'absolute truth' is the same as Nagarjuna's use of 'ultimate truth'.

If we're in agreement, you and Nagarjuna, with me trying to keep up, then we agree that conventional truth - e.g., that thinking is fragmentary, Hui-neng's from the first not a thing is, etc. - instructs us how we can approach the ultimate truth, and the ultimate truth is emptiness.

But if the ultimate truth is emptiness, where do the following fit in, as conventional truths or as additions to what is the nature of sunyata - e.g., sunyata = emptiness + Totality + A=A - or as alternatives to emptiness, emptiness rejected as ultimate truth:
David wrote:
that they are causally-created and lack inherent existence, that they are parts of the Totality, that their experiences and perceptions are finite (i.e. not inclusive of all that there is), that A always equals A, etc.


'parts of the Totality' suggests to me at least that Totality is ultimate truth, although quirks of language can produce situations where incorrect inferences are too easily drawn. Is Totality absolute truth? And again, it is important for my understanding whether 'absolute truth' and 'ultimate truth' are interchangeable. What is the relationship of Totality to sunyata? For that matter, what is Totality? I'm in need of explication. You were kind to several months ago link to 'A=A'. For the other elements I could site search but you are obviously the proper source, if you would be so kind.

Forgive me if I then spend some time 'catching up' on the particular truths you listed and whatever else you would care to add as being worthwhile study.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by Sapius »

Robert;
Robert to David; I hope you will make it clear whether your use of 'absolute truth' is the same as Nagarjuna's use of 'ultimate truth'.
I don’t see a real difference in how one chooses to express ones realization. How is ‘ultimate truth' not an ‘absolute truth’ and vice versa, unless either one lacked the essense of what they imply? Why is it so difficult for someone else to believe that there may be others who DO NOT BELIEVE in BELIEFS as you define it?

In my opinion you two are holding the very same stick from either ends and tug-o-waring on it to prove your own words (fingers), rather than sharing realizations (the moon).

With all due respects, as I understand it, absolute truth is but an ultimate UNDERSTANDING, and not something that one hangs on to by chanting it all night long. Once it’s realized, its realized; then one goes about chopping wood and carrying water, which according to me, both of you are actually doing. And I don’t really understand why you need to rely on ‘Z said this and J said that’ repeatedly; whom did they or say the very first one rely on? What exactly are you all about is the question in my opinion?
---------
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by David Quinn »

RobertGreenSky wrote:
David Quinn wrote:You provided a list yourself - e.g. all thinking is relative, fragmented, incapable of apprehending enlightenment, etc. These are things which you regard to be true of humans and donkeys, and presumably aliens from other worlds as well.

Some examples of truths that I know to be true of humans, donkeys and aliens include: that they are causally-created and lack inherent existence, that they are parts of the Totality, that their experiences and perceptions are finite (i.e. not inclusive of all that there is), that A always equals A, etc.
It appears from the first item I should have suggested you have not shared any absolute truth - none where I could be certain you were doing so - rather than that you have not shared any (conventional) truth. I hope you will make it clear whether your use of 'absolute truth' is the same as Nagarjuna's use of 'ultimate truth'.
Okay:

An absolute truth is defined as a truth which is necessarily true in all possible worlds. In other words, there can never be a time or place where it is not true. The truthfulness of it isn't dependent on the presence of particular conditions, and thus it is utterly impossible for it to be falsified under any circumstances. It is true all the time, everywhere, without exception. In other words, it is absolutely true.

The ultimate truth that Nagarjuna talks about - namely, emptiness - is merely a single example of an absolute truth. It is one example out of an infinite number of absolute truths. From a spiritual perspective, it is the most important absolute truth to know and the most life-changing, but still it is just one of countless absolute truths that can be known.

If we're in agreement, you and Nagarjuna, with me trying to keep up, then we agree that conventional truth - e.g., that thinking is fragmentary, Hui-neng's from the first not a thing is, etc. - instructs us how we can approach the ultimate truth, and the ultimate truth is emptiness.
Yes, it is by meditating on the most philosophical and far-reaching of absolute truths that one can climb to the place where the great truth of emptiness can be realized.

The term "conventional truth" can be misleading because it implies truths such as "all thinking is fragmentary" or "all things are caused" are merely socially agreed-upon beliefs, as affirmed by the conventional members of a community - which, of course, is nonsense. In reality, what Nagarjuna calls "conventional truths" are absolute truths that have been created out of conventional labels.

For example, the absolute truth that ''all things are caused" is created out of the labels "thing" and "cause". These labels, while useful, ultimately point to nothing real. In reality, there are no things in existence, because the boundaries that we habitually imagine are there between things are not really there. As such, the truth that "all things are caused" only has meaning up to a certain point. It only has meaning to the degree that we slip into the perspective that things exist.

It still qualifies as an absolute truth, because nowhere does it ever become falsified. Its meaningfulness as an absolute truth, however, depends on how much meaning we place on the view that things exist.

RobertGreenSky wrote:But if the ultimate truth is emptiness, where do the following fit in, as conventional truths or as additions to what is the nature of sunyata - e.g., sunyata = emptiness + Totality + A=A - or as alternatives to emptiness, emptiness rejected as ultimate truth:
David wrote:
that they are causally-created and lack inherent existence, that they are parts of the Totality, that their experiences and perceptions are finite (i.e. not inclusive of all that there is), that A always equals A, etc.

'parts of the Totality' suggests to me at least that Totality is ultimate truth, although quirks of language can produce situations where incorrect inferences are too easily drawn. Is Totality absolute truth?
The Totality is utterly everything and its true nature is sunyata. This is because all things, without exception, lack inherent existence. Recognizing that sunyata is sunyata, and not something other, is where A=A comes in to play. The inability to properly recognize what sunyata is is traditionally called ignorance.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by David Quinn »

Or as Nagarjuna put it:
The whole world is cause and effect; excluding this, there is no sentient being. From factors which are empty, empty factors originate.

Those who impute origination to even very subtle entities are unwise and have not seen the meaning of conditioned origination.

There is nothing to be denied and nothing to be affirmed. See the real correctly, for he who sees the real correctly is released.
Taken from "The Heart of Interdependent Origination"

-
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by Faust »

When is Dan going to reply to my posts referring to his post?

viewtopic.php?p=73679#p73679
Amor fati
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by Dan Rowden »

Time is relative, so it could be any minute now for me, yet any week now for you.
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by Faust »

what? Why are you delaying in replying to it?
Amor fati
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by Dan Rowden »

Faust13 wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:They are deluded in the sense - and limited to this sense - that they arise from irrational mindsets
which irrational mindsets?
The ones that emerge from egotistical dynamics between the sexes and underpin much of the psychology of sex. Dominance and submission, all the mythology that pertains to Woman that unnaturally increases her attractiveness above the base physical. The raw physical fact of physiological attraction is just what it is. I wouldn't describe that as delusional to the degree that it can be disassociated from the other stuff.
are driven by egotistical forces and/or involve myth and delusions regarding the nature of the opposite sex
everything is driven by egotistical forces, even philosophy. Which myths and delusions regarding the opposite sex? When I satisfy my sexual urges I don't know of any myths or delusions of the opposite sex
Yes, philosophy is driven by egotistical forces; it is also eventually transcended as such a thing. The egotistical forces of sexual interplay merely reinforce delusional thinking as they have no scope to do otherwise. Seriously, if I have to outline what exists in sexual interplay and attraction beyond the base physical I'll have to start thinking of you as an alien from another planet. If all you wanted from sex and all the drive was comprised of was climax, you'd be content to have sex with sheep or whichever of your hands you favour. But there are a host of psychological reasons and forces beyond that which cause us to enjoy or feel empowered by sexual attraction and the act of intercourse itself. These derive from things like dominance and submission urges, which stem from ego, as well as all the attributes we attach to Woman to make her a thing desirous of being conquered or known with such intimacy. I'll go into that in more detail if you want, just don't try and force a timeframe on me.
In short, sexuality as normally experienced involves a myriad of psychological follies
What's "normally" and abnormally experienced sex?
Normally experienced sex is sex as normal people experience it - duh. i.e with all the standard egotistical accouterments. Abnormal sex would be sex had without them. i.e. without ego.
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by Faust »

Dan Rowden wrote:The ones that emerge from egotistical dynamics between the sexes and underpin much of the psychology of sex.
which egotistical dynamics?
Dominance and submission, all the mythology that pertains to Woman that unnaturally increases her attractiveness above the base physical.
what about sex without doing the dominance and submission thing?

which mythology about women? What about naturally being attracted to the physical? Nothing wrong with that.
The raw physical fact of physiological attraction is just what it is.
what's so wrong about this?
The egotistical forces of sexual interplay merely reinforce delusional thinking as they have no scope to do otherwise.
aside from dominance and submission, what other egotistical forces are there?
If all you wanted from sex and all the drive was comprised of was climax, you'd be content to have sex with sheep or whichever of your hands you favour.
no because you can't produce with sheep, so that reproductive drive is also part of it.
But there are a host of psychological reasons and forces beyond that which cause us to enjoy or feel empowered by sexual attraction and the act of intercourse itself. These derive from things like dominance and submission urges, which stem from ego
and how is the ego delusional? Why do you think that dominance and submission urges stem from the ego? What does it give to the ego and how does this make the ego delusional?
as well as all the attributes we attach to Woman to make her a thing desirous of being conquered or known with such intimacy. I'll go into that in more detail if you want, just don't try and force a timeframe on me.
yes it would be informative if you could give more detail about this. What about a man wanting sex without the desire to 'conquer' because he already knows that it's delusional?
Normally experienced sex is sex as normal people experience it - duh. i.e with all the standard egotistical accouterments. Abnormal sex would be sex had without them. i.e. without ego.
can you give me more examples of the "standard egotistical accouterments" other than dominance and submission? Can you have sex without the ego?
Amor fati
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by Faust »

still waiting for your reply Dan
Amor fati
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by Shahrazad »

Putting pressure on Dan is not going to make him reply faster. You sound like a nagging wife.
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by Faust »

Well I know that he's going to ignore it until the post vanishes into obscurity and I unconsciously forget about it. What are the chances of him realizing that he didn't reply and going to the back pages trying to find the post?
Amor fati
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by Dan Rowden »

What are the chances of me ignoring it because you can't be bothered thinking for yourself? You keep asking questions to answers that require contemplation. Your last response to me read like that of a person who doesn't want to think at all. That doesn't inspire me.
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by Tomas »

.


-Shahrazad-
Putting pressure on Dan is not going to make him reply faster.

-tomas-
No doubt, when the toast pops up, you gotta spread that butter on there before the slices go cold...




-Shahrazad-
You sound like a nagging wife.

-tomas-
Yeah nagging went out in the 1950s, so outdated! The girlfriend learned a long time ago that hen-pecking is the way to deal with ego-free guys like me ;-)

ps- His avatar reminds me of that comedy series from the 1970s - Sanford & Son :-)



Tomas



.
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by Shahrazad »

ps- His avatar reminds me of that comedy series from the 1970s - Sanford & Son :-)
Dan's avatar? Why?
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by Tomas »

Shahrazad wrote:
ps- His avatar reminds me of that comedy series from the 1970s - Sanford & Son :-)
Dan's avatar? Why?
No, no. Faust's...

.
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by Shahrazad »

Oh. I can see why.
JustinZijlstra
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:26 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by JustinZijlstra »

There are some trivial bits in relation to this discussion, one can skimm naturally or see it as ornament usefull as illustration in this or other discussions.

Short critique on law (Also with Godel & Einstein ) (woman and man..)

If law makes people to behave, they surely do not behave in a lawless situation after some time.

The nature of humans does seem to change when one does not only let somone learn words but letting them experience how to falsify for themselves why different orientations can have different uses.

1)To put your hands before your wais: "immersive but swift attack".

2)To let your hands hang besides waist (or when having computer arms muscle stretch a bit):
"no immersion here thus, trusting one's reflexes".

2 here needs the question of: "What model can falsify reflexes for longer then 10 seconds?" (10 secs arbitrarily choses, however a single reflex can be pushed away, 10 second of reflex experience is hard to attain).*

1 keeps people untrustful to eachother, 2 makes people trivialize agressivity. Being blind fooled often is a painful redundant experience.

my step in the proces
How you decide if facial features are strongly correlated (in mind). (also how quickly one is aware of this)

When people decide slowly in life, stress is high.

Perhaps I will live longer because a lot is not 'objected to'? (thus understood)

I see it a lot: "faces that look like: 'holding pee'".

It is good to recognize this because otherwise stress is high. (thus registered but not being aware of it makes one feel stress and not handle towards)

You see it a lot in not so adult individuals, they make a point, someone else intervenes (pee face starts until decision is made (intuition) that 'to say something is possible'), then the intervention is trivial because both parties did not recognize facial features.

So how to discuss if facial features beforehand already show: 'not wanting to listen'?

--

some mother
"Not wanting to listen".... my teenage grandson of 15 years spent Easter with us! One look at his face showed boredom, distain and closed ears!
I find it all mildly amusing... mention a restaurant or a day skiing in the mountains...the eyes light up, the grin stretches from ear to ear and he can even be persuaded to take a shower!
He'll love the expression "holding pee"! He'll certainly take that on board...may even be a pathway for us all when those features fall into position!

another mother
My ADHD/audio processing disorder daughter has the holding pee face when you talk to her because she is translating the words as you speak.

My 16 year old son has the "I just peed" look of "ooooh goooood when is this going to be over" on his face.

My 15 year old daughter has her mouth open like a guppy constantly posed for a retort (which to me means she is not listening, only planning)

My 8 year old is looking around and thinking about anything but what you are talking to him about.

My mother, on the other hand, doesn't have the holding pee face...she has the "I have been constipated for 2 weeks" face.
And my dad just tends to look angry.

Note
The mother's mother here cannot make her point indeed. Somewhere someone said Paris Hilton looks like someone continuously constipating. Funny bit I figured.


Critique part
Law needs not stimulate good behaviour, it needs be a last resort. Law in the back makes one lazy if the law pushes you in certain roads if you deviate.

The American Constitution can also be summarized and has been in a childrens tiny little book. However the IRS and lower court judges deviate from this a lot.

"Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."


This Amendment allows the Congress to levy an income tax without regard to the States or the Census.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_ ... nstitution


Stanton argued that the tax law was unconstitutional and void under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that the law denied "to mining companies and their stockholders equal protection of the laws and deprive[d] them of their property without due process of law." The Court rejected that argument. Stanton also argued that the Sixteenth Amendment "authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, to which the tax in question does not conform" and that therefore the income tax was "not within the authority of that Amendment." The Court also rejected this argument. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the constitutionality of the income tax under the 1913 Act, contradicts those tax protesters arguments that the income tax is unconstitutional under either the Fifth Amendment or the Sixteenth Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protes ... _arguments

The question here is for me. Is the Supreme Court consistent with the rest of America? If this is not the case it surely shows that the Supreme Court will be denied just because 'below' it all changed.

There are legal and illigal taxes and both end up because of law in the central reserve. But the central reserve and the white house or states are dependent on banks.

Hypothesis: More poor people pay more taxes relatively per person and rich perhaps don't pay taxes at all. There have been a lot of people who's houses where completely raided. And they follow 'some' law indeed! But is the IRS law or making a supreme strong case of it?


If all are dependent on law people become docile. 'No law' tends to do the opposite. If people use all their senses and use the available words for it, not even a deeply Oriental person from any tribe will be disturbed because all who observe are grown. Not tolerance or acceptance but understanding. Tolerance is the last resort and acceptance the second in this three alternative approach. Also understanding removes distance or not being seen.

Godel and Einstein on the Constitution
In my study on the collected works of Godel a while ago (which I never took up because..yet..) I found some fantastic gems, the following is retreived from the net because of it.

Gödel and Einstein

Gödel and Einstein formed a special bond during their time in Princeton. The two men were often seen conversing in German, walking to and from the Institute, engaged in discussion about relativity, including Gödel’s rotating universe model, among other topics. It was Einstein who suggested Gödel for the prestigious Einstein Award, which he received in 1951 jointly with Harvard mathematical physicist Julian Schwinger, a move designed by Einstein to bolster Gödel’s morale at a time when he had been ill.

When Gödel applied for naturalization as an American citizen in 1948, it was Einstein who, together with Princeton University mathematician Oskar Morgenstern, accompanied Gödel to his interview with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

On September 13, 1971, Morgenstern recorded the following memory of Gödel’s 1948 Trenton interview with an official of the Immigration Service.

“[Gödel] rather excitedly told me that in looking at the Constitution, to his distress, he had found some inner contradictions and that he could show how in a perfectly legal manner it would be possible for somebody to become a dictator and set up a Fascist regime never intended by those who drew up the Constitution. I told him that it was most unlikely that such events would ever occur, even assuming that he was right, which of course I doubted.

But he was persistent and so we had many talks about this particular point. I tried to persuade him that he should avoid bringing up such matters at the examination before the court in Trenton, and I also told Einstein about it: he was horrified that such an idea had occurred to Gödel, and he also told him he should not worry about these things nor discuss that matter.

Many months went by and finally the date for the examination in Trenton came. On that particular day, I picked up Gödel in my car. He sat in the back and then we went to pick up Einstein at his house on Mercer Street, and from there we drove to Trenton. While we were driving, Einstein turned around a little and said, “Now Gödel, are you really well prepared for this examination?�? Of course, this remark upset Gödel tremendously, which was exactly what Einstein intended and he was greatly amused when he saw the worry on Gödel’s face.

When we came to Trenton, we were ushered into a big room, and while normally the witnesses are questioned separately from the candidate, because of Einstein’s appearance, an exception was made and all three of us were invited to sit down together, Gödel, in the center. The examiner first asked Einstein and then me whether we thought Gödel would make a good citizen. We assured him that this would certainly be the case, that he was a distinguished man, etc.

And then he turned to Gödel and said, Now, Mr. Gödel, where do you come from?
Gödel: Where I come from? Austria.
The examiner: What kind of government did you have in Austria?
Gödel: It was a republic, but the constitution was such that it finally was changed into a dictatorship.
The examiner: Oh! This is very bad. This could not happen in this country.
Gödel: Oh, yes, I can prove it.

So of all the possible questions, just that critical one was asked by the examiner. Einstein and I were horrified during this exchange; the examiner was intelligent enough to quickly quieten Gödel and broke off the examination at this point, greatly to our relief.�?




*A short while ago in a nearby park I phoned with my dad and saw a tree over the water, I was pretty reflexmatic at that moment and while phoning walked over it, then back again, I didnt need to balance, it was done 'for me'.
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by Faust »

Dan Rowden wrote:What are the chances of me ignoring it because you can't be bothered thinking for yourself?
I have thought about it but I don't see how you can't have sex without the ego, or without dominance/submission, or other "myths" of woman. You're claiming that all sex must involve some of this but without giving any reasons why.
You keep asking questions to answers that require contemplation. Your last response to me read like that of a person who doesn't want to think at all. That doesn't inspire me.
uhh, it's called thinking and seeing that you're lacking in specifics and concrete arguments. I asked those questions precisely because I found many of your reasons empty due to its lack of explanations.
Amor fati
JustinZijlstra
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:26 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by JustinZijlstra »

Faust13 wrote:uhh, it's called thinking and seeing that you're lacking in specifics and concrete arguments. I asked those questions precisely because I found many of your reasons empty due to its lack of explanations.
Well, you surely haven't got any thorough training in thinking, logic or analytic philosophy.
Faust13 wrote:uhh, it's called thinking and seeing that you're lacking in specifics and concrete arguments.
On your side this is association and it is also not called 'seeing that...blah', if one associates on bases of thought, those associations are intuitive crap. Something like a laser if you want that at some point goes over a self assumed mirror, and then one comes in his or her own labyrint.

Zen->When you find the buddha on your road, kill it.
When one gets enthousiastic from thinking and forgets it was thought, one applies the attained models in reality, however, at some point this model gets proven not all encompassing, would you admit that you where enthousiastic in the beginning?
Faust13 wrote: I asked those questions precisely because I found many of your reasons empty due to its lack of explanations.
If reasons are not explanations you are lived by reason.

And who says intention is important? Everyone has his preoccupations. You keep clinging to some twat arguments rationally seen.

There is no lack of explanations, there for you is a lack of:
1)expression (you express your feelings etc which clearly shows you cannot reason without expression)
2)mirrors
Faust13 wrote:due to its lack of explanations.
Those words in combination are either complete swine words or is a parroting of people in your environment.
There is no lack of explanations possible, only an experience of want. So do you deceitfully say 'due to its lack' so that you think you'll get an answer? Why not use 'honest' (see the words praised here under forum title): 'I experience a want for explanations'?


Perhaps you are to sure of yourself and keep finding reasons and answers. The ego is the hardest thing to integrate and also the hardest thing to get out of. If one jails all painful memories the ego simply does not 'see'.

In Freudean terminology:

ID<->Superego
VVVVVVVVVVV
---->Ego<----

That seems to be your state.

ID-->Superego-->Ego

That is ideal.
Drives->Border control (absolute ethics (if you can in your imagination see that you would punish you once in your lifetime of your behaviour your going to comit you should not do it, if all choices have catches, best option and then you have a reason))--->ego.

If you want to have a point there is no reason discussing.

Perhaps search about Nagarjuna?
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Men commit actions; women commit gestures

Post by Faust »

Who is this illiterate spammer?
Amor fati
Locked