I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.

[ROB]

Bequest.

You left me, sweet, two legacies--
A legacy of love
A Heavenly Father would
Had He the offer of; content,

You left me boundaries of pain
Capacious as the sea,
Between eternity and time,
Your consciousness and me.

Emily Dickenson*

[ROB]

Yes, I am making this claim, although of course not on behalf of "myself," but rather on behalf of all sentient beings.

I do not exist, and yet the appearance of "me" presents itself. It is very simple to understand when the time is right.

A=A= consciousness. The awareness which is Nature is shared by one and all, whether they realize or not. Life = Life.

Time and space are illusions, yet persistent. They persist due to our given perceptions. Read Chuang-Tsu and learn.

You're designing a quote by Hitler.

Who saved the world from 1940-1944? I did. And, that is your assumption. Quirky but effective. Now. :)

[Dan Rowden]

Rob, start posting coherently and/or relevantly, or fuck the hell off. This is your only warning.

[Unidian]

Well, I was just ignoring those "contributions" but I can see why you would want to eliminate them.

[Cahoot]

Correct, but rationality is ultimately not the truth. It's important to remember this as well.

Why?

[Dan Rowden]

Are you asking why rationality is not the truth or why it's important to remember it?

[Cahoot]

Are you asking why rationality is not the truth or why it's important to remember it?

I'm asking Unidan why it's important to remember it. The answer may offer an opening to explore the assertion that rationality is ultimately not the truth.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Rationality and what is rational is always based on particular experiences. It is not the truth. (We only experience particular experiences)

Basing information on particular experiences is already irrational. There is only so much knowledge you can have without doing this, I would call it understanding through direct experience rather then knowing, all knowledge is based on someone's particular experiences.
Experience changes, what is rational changes.

[Cahoot]

Rationality and what is rational is always based on particular experiences. It is not the truth. (We only experience particular experiences)

Basing information on particular experiences is already irrational. There is only so much knowledge you can have without doing this, I would call it understanding through direct experience rather then knowing, all knowledge is based on someone's particular experiences.
Experience changes, what is rational changes.

Are you saying that (the knowing of) truth is not an experience?

[Dan Rowden]

Rationality and what is rational is always based on particular experiences. It is not the truth. (We only experience particular experiences)

Basing information on particular experiences is already irrational. There is only so much knowledge you can have without doing this, I would call it understanding through direct experience rather then knowing, all knowledge is based on someone's particular experiences.
Experience changes, what is rational changes.

That isn't true at all. Logic grounded in A=A is eternal and unchanging. No experience, however new or different can undermine absolute logical truths (small "t"). There has never been a time, and never will be a time, for example, when there are married bachelors. The limits of induction apply only to the empirical.

[Bobo]

What makes marriage logical instead of empirical?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

A doesn't = A, those are two different A's right there on the screen. :b

Cahoot

No, I am saying the exact opposite, the "knowing" of truth is an experience, a particular experience, not very reliable is it?

There is understanding which occurs as an experience but is not based on any particular experience, such understanding remains true no matter what you are shown.

I could be viewing 7 billion people live in a 1mx1m cardboard box and still say "this is happening of the mind".

I couldn't say "7 billion people can't fit in a small box", because I would be wrong.

But, at any time, no matter what the particular experience presents, I can say through understanding, "What I see is occurring 'within' the mind". True knowledge must hold true, real knowledge isn't wrong next year.

[Dan Rowden]

What makes marriage logical instead of empirical?

What? It's both.

[Bobo]

There has never been a time, and never will be a time, for example, when there are married bachelors.

So then, it's both. There has never been a time, and there was, when there are married bachelors.

[Dan Rowden]

I'm sorry, I can't actually make sense of that.

[Bobo]

If marriage is logical, there are limits to married bachelors. If it's also empirical, what are the limits for there being married bachelors?

The only limit would be if marriage was logical, but if it is inducted, where are the limits? (As a limit to either be married or a bachelor.)

[Dan Rowden]

A married bachelor is a logical impossibility. There can be no example of such a thing in any sense, ever.

[Kunga]

A married bachelor is a logical impossibility. There can be no example of such a thing in any sense, ever.

How about a man that forgets he's married & cheats ?

[Bobo]

And what is the logical basis for it that is non-empirical?

That I can say for example that I'm talking about marriage and not something else.

[Dan Rowden]

A married bachelor is a logical impossibility. There can be no example of such a thing in any sense, ever.

How about a man that forgets he's married & cheats ?

Please tell me that was meant as a joke...

[Dan Rowden]

And what is the logical basis for it that is non-empirical?

That I can say for example that I'm talking about marriage and not something else.

The logical basis lies in the concepts and definitions. The empirical basis lies in the empirical fact of married people etc.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

All you have said is that the logical impossibility of married bachelors is based only on your relative perspective.

If someone with different understandings of the same sounds said "I am a married bachelor" then what he said would be just as true as "There can be no such thing as married bachelors".

But you would tell him he had a different meaning and that it can't be true using your own meaning.

What, it's not true specifically because of your own relative view point? What about the other guys?
Is it based on majority?

It isn't a truth because it doesn't last nor does it apply to everyone.

Everything changes, nothing lasts.

"Everything changes" is a truth because it lasts and it applies to everyone, "everything changes" never changes.

"There can't be married bachelors" also changes and so it doesn't last and isn't a truth.

It's a relative perspective based on relative understandings of relative words.

Why not try saying some truths of ultimate reality that hold true?

Besides a=a which is just saying this symbol looks like that symbol and so this statement of them being the same is true.


Or even 1=1, which is just saying, my relative conceptualization of "one thing" is the same as another of my conceptualizations of "one thing".

[Dan Rowden]

It's obvious I'm going to have to give you a remedial lesson in the law of identity, the basics of logic and what definitions and concepts are. But before I do that, if I can find the motivation, I'd like you to watch this video. Hell, you may even like it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPgSf42oX9o

[Dennis Mahar]

It's obvious I'm going to have to give you a remedial lesson in the law of identity, the basics of logic and what definitions and concepts are.

It would be a lucky break if seeker could find his inner student and be available for this Inquiry.
Alas, seeker desires to instruct only because Inquiry is closed for him.

When the ordinary, everyday base nature of threefoldness tires,
ie, rescuer, persecutor, victim.

as in,
doctor, illness, patient.
police, victim, criminal.

For philosophy,
the threefold is:

Inquiry, teacher, student.

How about it seeker.
Dan's Inquiry, which he's willing to explain, invites the participation of a student.
A student listens to and questions teacher in the realm of Inquiry.
Can you accomplish that.
Is Dan's generosity to be smacked down with a churlish 'youse are talkin' about nothin'.

It's not hard to get what you are saying seeker.
'Nothing exists!'

cool!
nothing exists!
let's do cartwheels.

It's funny how nothing exists and yet experience goes on.
Dan's offer is to explain 'how it exists'.

Your 'how it exists',
that it is an illusion of the mind,
teaches cliche, teaches quote.

Buddha taught emptiness,
then dependent origination.
Then he taught the thing that was way and above the most important thing to him.
He explained in detail.

He taught,
Who are you being?
the noble 8 fold path.

nobility of mind was his teaching thang of much greater importance than conceptual adroitness.

nobility of mind is to be 'open' in Inquiry,
listening as student,
clear in teaching or submitting findings to Inquiry.

Who are you being?

[Dennis Mahar]

When you lay your head on the pillow at night and fall asleep and have a dream.
I'll bet you all the tea in china that this happens.

The dream will be 'Dasein (being there) in circumstances.

Dasein will be in pleasurable circumstances.

or

Dasein will be in difficult circumstances.
In the difficult circumstances there will be a victim component, a rescue component and a persecuting component.
never fails to be so.

This is what Buddha calls samsara,
the uneven nature of life,
pleasure/pain.