Shakespeare nailed it

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:Not so tricky to include desire as "social passion", particularly when one evokes Sartre's "Hell is other people". Desire as lack, as a result of self-reflection precipitated by the other.
Yes, as I wrote "it needs first a public stage, imagined, inwards or actual". But not all things commonly called "desire" seem to operate like that. The reason I thought of Sartre is that the "hell" comes in when humiliation, shame, pride, social status, power games and so on start taking center stage. That initially a "lack" initiated a need for "other" does, in my eyes, not qualify the need itself as emotion.
Leyla Shen wrote:I would say need would be fear's instinctual/primal counterpart (as opposed to psychological/psychosocial counterpart), rather than desire.
So would you say "need" is an emotion or not? In any case, desire appears to be way more than a "social passion" since it doesn't have to relate to anything social or psychologically projected. In any case, I took the original remark about "motivation" on which I responded as meaning foremost the psychological feature. Although weather can be considered as physical influence on our motivations, that doesn't make the weather crucial for having motivation. That was so far my line of reasoning.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

Cahoot wrote:With so many resources, surely your sincere enquiry has revealed this distinction.

Difference Between Pity and Compassion
http://www.differencebetween.net/scienc ... ompassion/
1.Pity is the feeling of sympathy or sharing in the suffering of another human being or an animal while compassion is the feeling of mercy, empathy, and a desire to help the suffering person or animal.
2.Pity is an emotion while compassion is both an emotion and a virtue.
3.Pity can sometimes be tinged with contempt or dislike while compassion is part of love and is therefore free from any negative feelings.
It seems to me that point 3 is the only substantial one, that pity is (or could be) linked with negative feelings toward the subject, whereas compassion is linked to positive feelings for the subject. But it doesn't completely cover the issue.

From my Christian background, my impression is: Christianity: universal "love", "compassion" for all suffering: emphasis on alleviating (physical) suffering as much as possible. That's the ugly type of compassion with which I associate the term. Christianity eliminates pity altogether, re-branding it as compassion.

Then I suppose there is a more subtle compassion based on selective "love" (or respect) and that is also probably less eager to always alleviate the suffering, which sounds much more healthy.

I'd be curious to hear more about what type of compassion ardy likes, or what type movingalways feels.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Pam Seeback »

RZoo: I'd be curious to hear more about what type of compassion ardy likes, or what type movingalways feels.
My definition of compassion is best described as an acceptance of the existence of suffering that I understand to be inherent in will or consciousness. Another way of saying it is that I have compassion for the necessity of the irrationality of bias, "there's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in" (Leonard Cohen, Anthem). And whether or not thinking consciousness or intellectual will needs my compassion for its inherent irrational crack is a moot point. I'm conscious, I need it, it keeps me out of the looney bin. You have a Christian background as do I (a mild form), so I'll put it in Christian terms: I have compassion for God Himself.
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by divine focus »

Compassion to me is just understanding. It doesn't necessarily involve any action, simply non-judgment.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Pam Seeback »

divine focus wrote:Compassion to me is just understanding. It doesn't necessarily involve any action, simply non-judgment.
How do you understand something without judgment (reasoning, analysis, applying meaning)?
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by ardy »

RZoo wrote:Compassion is certainly typical in today's society due to the prevailing morality, but it is really an ugly thing when you look at it more closely: "Oh you poor thing, I am so much better than you that I shall take pity on you and give you some of my compassion and help you to be better like me." It's condescension and a feeling of superiority (and moral superiority). I wouldn't want to receive it, so I wouldn't give it either. I suppose a different flavor of compassion could exist out of respect, but I feel like that's a rarer form and that most people today who describe themselves as compassionate do not do it out of respect.
I think there is a lot of false emoting (and over emoting) in the Western world not to be confused with compassion. They are hunting a woman who gave a racist rant at someone on a train yesterday and it ended up on Utube, bizarre that the whole police force is swung into action over some woman possibly with mental issues 'losing it'. Yet if you murder someone it barely raises a mention. Compassion comes from a surgeon working in the public hospital doing their best to save and fix people without a shred of emotion, just focus on the job and the end result.

There are so many liars that it is unusual to come across someone who doesn't lie at some level. Mind you if you speak the truth as you see it, there are many who would lock you in jail or an asylum for such things.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Cahoot »

Undue concern over the perceived shortcomings of others does seem suited to statist totalitarianism, don’t you think?

An aspect of skillful means is to always speak truth when you do speak, without exception. “Brutal truth” is simply a description of presentation or acceptance, rather than a description of the nature of truth itself. Since love’s compassion rather than ego’s pity weakens the illusory boundary between the inner and the outer, compassion is necessary to ascertain truth that pertains to the perspective of totality rather than a perspective that simply pertains to the truth of a limited aspect of the totality. Compassion subjects one to the totalitarianism of the unchanging truth that is recognized and realized rather than acquired. Spontaneous compassion accompanies an inability to forget unchanging truth, and until that causeless state of being exists then the practice of compassion as a tenet of ethics, for the purpose of eventually realizing the spontaneity of compassion as was realized by those who inspired the development of ethical canons (such as Christ and Buddha), requires the emulation of remembrance, as often as capacity allows.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

Cahoot wrote:An aspect of skillful means is to always speak truth when you do speak, without exception. “Brutal truth” is simply a description of presentation or acceptance, rather than a description of the nature of truth itself. Since love’s compassion rather than ego’s pity weakens the illusory boundary between the inner and the outer, compassion is necessary to ascertain truth that pertains to the perspective of totality rather than a perspective that simply pertains to the truth of a limited aspect of the totality. Compassion subjects one to the totalitarianism of the unchanging truth that is recognized and realized rather than acquired. Spontaneous compassion accompanies an inability to forget unchanging truth, and until that causeless state of being exists then the practice of compassion as a tenet of ethics, for the purpose of eventually realizing the spontaneity of compassion as was realized by those who inspired the development of ethical canons (such as Christ and Buddha), requires the emulation of remembrance, as often as capacity allows.
Maybe you, too, will appeal to the downtrodden someday; just be sure to tell them something they can interpret in a way that's favorable for themselves. Honestly, I can't make much sense of your jibberish (it's much denser than Jesus' parables), but maybe it's exactly what's needed to spark a new, 21st century religion. ;-)
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Leyla Shen »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:L: I would say need would be fear's instinctual/primal counterpart (as opposed to psychological/psychosocial counterpart)*, rather than desire.

D: So would you say "need" is an emotion or not?
Who wrote that? (:

What I meant was, need and fear rather than fear and desire are more suitable counterparts when it comes to primal drives.

Whichever term you choose in the end, the essential distinction you are making is one between psychological/psychosocial rather than physiological lack. Generally, the term desire is used to make that distinction since, compared to need, it is a distinctly psychological yearning; "the wish". It is the wish actually to be the object of the other's desire; and to do that, one needs to gratify the other's lack (which is precisely where the psychological/psychosocial dynamics, complete with ego and emotion, come fully into play).
Between Suicides
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Cahoot »

RZoo wrote:
Cahoot wrote:An aspect of skillful means is to always speak truth when you do speak, without exception. “Brutal truth” is simply a description of presentation or acceptance, rather than a description of the nature of truth itself. Since love’s compassion rather than ego’s pity weakens the illusory boundary between the inner and the outer, compassion is necessary to ascertain truth that pertains to the perspective of totality rather than a perspective that simply pertains to the truth of a limited aspect of the totality. Compassion subjects one to the totalitarianism of the unchanging truth that is recognized and realized rather than acquired. Spontaneous compassion accompanies an inability to forget unchanging truth, and until that causeless state of being exists then the practice of compassion as a tenet of ethics, for the purpose of eventually realizing the spontaneity of compassion as was realized by those who inspired the development of ethical canons (such as Christ and Buddha), requires the emulation of remembrance, as often as capacity allows.
Maybe you, too, will appeal to the downtrodden someday; just be sure to tell them something they can interpret in a way that's favorable for themselves. Honestly, I can't make much sense of your jibberish (it's much denser than Jesus' parables), but maybe it's exactly what's needed to spark a new, 21st century religion. ;-)
Rise above your limitations, Zoolander.
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by divine focus »

movingalways wrote:
divine focus wrote:Compassion to me is just understanding. It doesn't necessarily involve any action, simply non-judgment.
How do you understand something without judgment (reasoning, analysis, applying meaning)?
When I say non-judgment, I mean it in terms of good and bad, right and wrong. Compassion involves acceptance of the person you are being compassionate toward.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Pam Seeback »

Moral judgment and compassion do not good bedfellows make!
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by ardy »

RZoo wrote:
Cahoot wrote:An aspect of skillful means is to always speak truth when you do speak, without exception. “Brutal truth” is simply a description of presentation or acceptance, rather than a description of the nature of truth itself. Since love’s compassion rather than ego’s pity weakens the illusory boundary between the inner and the outer, compassion is necessary to ascertain truth that pertains to the perspective of totality rather than a perspective that simply pertains to the truth of a limited aspect of the totality. Compassion subjects one to the totalitarianism of the unchanging truth that is recognized and realized rather than acquired. Spontaneous compassion accompanies an inability to forget unchanging truth, and until that causeless state of being exists then the practice of compassion as a tenet of ethics, for the purpose of eventually realizing the spontaneity of compassion as was realized by those who inspired the development of ethical canons (such as Christ and Buddha), requires the emulation of remembrance, as often as capacity allows.
Maybe you, too, will appeal to the downtrodden someday; just be sure to tell them something they can interpret in a way that's favorable for themselves. Honestly, I can't make much sense of your jibberish (it's much denser than Jesus' parables), but maybe it's exactly what's needed to spark a new, 21st century religion. ;-)
RZoo - Love it you remind me of the stupid self centred rubbish I used to spout when I was young. God! you take me back.

Too late the spark is already turning to fire, the end of the age of science and enlightenment signals a return to the dark ages, and control of people by whatever becomes the new religion. (This is my personal view of life)

At the moment some form of Earth worship is firmly entrenched as the front runner. Authoritarian Greens movements are proving a foundation religious movement. They will brook no questioning of their correctness, amazing fines and court cases are raised by local, state and federal governments on issues that have little to no effect on the population ie cutting a tree down whilst planting 10 more which has happened in our area. To think they came out of the hippy movement who were anti-establishment, they are worse than any authoritarian government I have lived under.

Cahoots statement is correct to my mind and something you could learn something from.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

ardy wrote:RZoo - Love it you remind me of the stupid self centred rubbish I used to spout when I was young. God! you take me back.

...

Cahoots statement is correct to my mind and something you could learn something from.
Ah yes, back when you used to spout stupid self-centered rubbish... good times. Now you're still spouting stupid self-centered rubbish, such as wailing about your authoritarian masters being too hard on you while simultaneously praising "love's compassion".
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:What I meant was, need and fear rather than fear and desire are more suitable counterparts when it comes to primal drives.
But couldn't "need " be described simpler as "fear to lack something"? With fear defined as "recoil from", flight or strong rejection. Then to me your definition would boil down to "fear" with its flip side "desire" as just a matter of perspective. I guess my problem with the word "need" here is that it's more like a situational or object description. Before we know it, chemistry, molecules and neuroscience come into play and other terms will replace that "need" again since it's often just describing clinically any situation of lack. For example like the body has a "need" for iron but does it make it a motivator for behavior?
Generally, the term desire is used to make that distinction since, compared to need, it is a distinctly psychological yearning; "the wish".
Well, this all depends on how emotions are defined since I was initially reacting to words by RZoo indicating that emotions were prime motivators of our behavior. For me that is not a useful mode of thinking or at least it muddles many boundaries between feelings, impulses and emotions in ways I don't think are useful when discussing these from experimental or even existentialist points of view.
It is the wish actually to be the object of the other's desire; and to do that, one needs to gratify the other's lack (which is precisely where the psychological/psychosocial dynamics, complete with ego and emotion, come fully into play).
While I agree with the first part, I don't believe that "other's lack" is ever more than delusion. It's all about the desire to become "object" or in other words gaining some psychological sense of existence through the desire itself. Ignorance as fundamental self-deception, to assume existence ("inherent", "self", "thingness"), attaching to this sense and then crave for anything giving more body to this. This manifests as desire for especially illusion, smoke and mirrors because of what they can provide. This results in a "society of the spectacle" almost naturally, with everybody more and more craving to become the object of someone's desire or just any attention or brief exposures. A stunning "reality generating machinery"!
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by ardy »

RZoo wrote:Ah yes, back when you used to spout stupid self-centered rubbish... good times. Now you're still spouting stupid self-centered rubbish, such as wailing about your authoritarian masters being too hard on you while simultaneously praising "love's compassion".
HA! Too bloody true unfortunately, but not as often as I used to. Any old how - they are not MY authoritarian masters they are YOURS! I'll be dead in a few years and you will have to deal with it, or bend over and take it.

When you discover that you are a lot softer than you think you are, it is some form of a full stop on the fashion of how you want to appear to how you really are (at a surface level). Life does that to you, it takes what you think and turns it on its head - Often.. That assumes that there is some level of introspection to use the experience. Still Shakespeare seems to point to introspection in nearly all of his main characters. At some level it is an important ingredient that stops you from believing your own bull.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

ardy wrote:When you discover that you are a lot softer than you think you are....
At least you have the comfort of the majority and the beautiful morality of compassion and peace, now. Strength and independence isn't for everyone. :-)
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by ardy »

RZoo wrote:
ardy wrote:When you discover that you are a lot softer than you think you are....
At least you have the comfort of the majority and the beautiful morality of compassion and peace, now. Strength and independence isn't for everyone. :-)
Well it should be, but you don't get strong by being hard. And you don't get independence by messing with the crowd, it is gained on your own. We are herding animals and the herd does not like animals that do not conform to the herd. There is an outbreak of full beards amongst young men and it is like a virus as they all rush to be at the head of the crowd in terms of blind herd stupidity.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Cahoot »

Excluding strength from compassion is a false dichotomy, and human capacity need not be bound by the ignorance of the crab bucket.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... rab+bucket
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Leyla Shen »

D,
But couldn't "need " be described simpler as "fear to lack something"? With fear defined as "recoil from", flight or strong rejection.
Yes, which is why I qualified the statement in the very next sentence as follows:
Whichever term you choose in the end, the essential distinction you are making is one between psychological/psychosocial rather than physiological lack.
Which makes the first paragraph you wrote in reply redundant to my mind.
L: Generally, the term desire is used to make that distinction since, compared to need, it is a distinctly psychological yearning; "the wish".

D: Well, this all depends on how emotions are defined since I was initially reacting to words by RZoo indicating that emotions were prime motivators of our behavior. For me that is not a useful mode of thinking or at least it muddles many boundaries between feelings, impulses and emotions in ways I don't think are useful when discussing these from experimental or even existentialist points of view.
Some pages earlier:
movingalways wrote:The consciousness I was referring to in my original question is the consciousness of accepting the relationship of the question to the answer, the relationship of darkness (suffering) to light (release from suffering). Which means one can let go of their hatred of having been made to suffer. What is the point of hating something that is a requirement for knowing?

RZoo: It wouldn't be suffering if it was comfortable and didn't evoke the emotions (ie. hatred). If one can let go of their hatred of being made to suffer, then they can no longer gain anything from their suffering (if you can even call it suffering); they've shielded themselves by becoming emotionally detached. In the process of cutting off hatred, you also cut off joy. Without emotions, a person cannot have motivations. Taken to the extreme, they should retire to a hospital bed to be cared for by others, as they themselves have no reason to continue living.
RZoo is simply arguing that emotions and suffering are inseparable, and that letting go of a hatred of having been made to suffer is simply the practice of rejecting one's emotions and does not resolve the question of suffering therefore. So, he suggests, this detachment from the emotional aspect of suffering is necessarily anti-enlightenment as it's not really an end to suffering, but an illusion created by denying feelings which arise from suffering. "Ohm..."

I don't think your criticism of his contribution on this point is accurate at all, Pam's apparent (though it's possible I missed its appearance later in the thread) lack of a reply notwithstanding.
L: [Desire] is the wish actually to be the object of the other's desire; and to do that, one needs to gratify the other's lack (which is precisely where the psychological/psychosocial dynamics, complete with ego and emotion, come fully into play).

D: While I agree with the first part, I don't believe that "other's lack" is ever more than delusion. It's all about the desire to become "object" or in other words gaining some psychological sense of existence through the desire itself. Ignorance as fundamental self-deception, to assume existence ("inherent", "self", "thingness"), attaching to this sense and then crave for anything giving more body to this. This manifests as desire for especially illusion, smoke and mirrors because of what they can provide. This results in a "society of the spectacle" almost naturally, with everybody more and more craving to become the object of someone's desire or just any attention or brief exposures. A stunning "reality generating machinery"!
Lol. I'm sorry, Diebert, but, as I am sure has happened to all of us here on at least 2.5 occasions, I have no idea what to make of that right at this moment. I do appreciate the passion in your exclamation mark, though! (:
Between Suicides
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Cahoot »

Emotions are irrelevant to resolving the question of suffering.

- Emotions come and go.
- Suffering comes and goes.
- Since emotions come and go, they fluctuate.
- To measure suffering against emotions is to measure one fluctuating variable against another fluctuating variable.
- To “resolve the question of suffering” and understand its fluctuations of coming and going, suffering must be noted in relation to that which does not vary, i.e., a constant. Without a constant, any found resolution is itself merely a fluctuating variable.
- Thus, to say that suffering is required to know the nature of non-suffering is a flawed premise, since both suffering and non-suffering come and go, and neither is a constant.

- In the equation e=m(c-squared), c is the constant by which e and m are known.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

Genius log, July 08, 2014.

Today I postulate a new theorem. Temperatures are irrelevant to resolving the "question" of heat sources.

- Temperatures fluctuate.
- Heat sources fluctuate (ie. the sun orbits around the earth).
- To measure temperatures against heat sources is to measure one fluctuating variable against another.
- To resolve the question of heat sources and understand their fluctuations of coming and going, heat sources must be noted in relation to that which does not vary, i.e. a constant.
- Thus, to say that heat sources are required to know the nature of non-heat sources is a flawed premise, since both heat sources and non-heat sources come and go, and neither is a constant. (Note to self: sure what this non sequitur means, but it sounds good.)

- Genius idea: Maybe if I define a "constant", such as 299792458 m/s, and relate my theory of heat sources to that number, my curiosities will be satisfied. Then I'll have resolved the question of heat sources, just as Einstein resolved the question of energy (any lesser a genius would have merely related one relative variable to another, say mass). I leave this exercise to a future entry.

- Final note to self: Explore corollary: Heat sources are also irrelevant to resolving the question of temperatures.

Signed yours truly in ultimate reality, compassion, and enlightenment,
Genius B. Dick.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:I don't think your criticism of his contribution on this point is accurate at all]
In the end all I did was disagreeing how he appeared to define emotions as anything "deep". In much of the same way I believe you have not really pegged the concept of "need". On social passions I've made enough posts already outlining the framework of that definition. I think it's pretty strong overall and I didn't even come up with it!
Lol. I'm sorry, Diebert, but, as I am sure has happened to all of us here on at least 2.5 occasions, I have no idea what to make of that right at this moment.
Only 2.5? Encouraging numbers. Anyway, I was just linking specific desires to a general desire to exist psychologically and of course the fear to stop existing that way.
I do appreciate the passion in your exclamation mark, though! (:
Did that appreciation followed the gratification of some lack of yours or one of mine?! :)

Exclamation as well as affirmation can also be seen as just overflow, enthusiasm or "begeistering". Desire without any object but to die off. This is different from your position that the psychological "yearning" called desire is always connected to becoming object of another's desire. Which would be a confusing self-referential loop: a desire defined as a function of desire of someone else...where would that end?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Cahoot wrote:...both suffering and non-suffering come and go, and neither is a constant
Actually that coming and going is described as the reason (but not the cause) of our suffering and relief, at least by Buddha. In the mean while "coming and going" is not coming and going itself. It's eternal to our contemporariness, if anything at all.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Cahoot »

RZoo wrote:Genius log, July 08, 2014.

Today I postulate a new theorem. Temperatures are irrelevant to resolving the "question" of heat sources.

- Temperatures fluctuate.
- Heat sources fluctuate (ie. the sun orbits around the earth).
- To measure temperatures against heat sources is to measure one fluctuating variable against another.
- To resolve the question of heat sources and understand their fluctuations of coming and going, heat sources must be noted in relation to that which does not vary, i.e. a constant.
- Thus, to say that heat sources are required to know the nature of non-heat sources is a flawed premise, since both heat sources and non-heat sources come and go, and neither is a constant. (Note to self: sure what this non sequitur means, but it sounds good.)

- Genius idea: Maybe if I define a "constant", such as 299792458 m/s, and relate my theory of heat sources to that number, my curiosities will be satisfied. Then I'll have resolved the question of heat sources, just as Einstein resolved the question of energy (any lesser a genius would have merely related one relative variable to another, say mass). I leave this exercise to a future entry.

- Final note to self: Explore corollary: Heat sources are also irrelevant to resolving the question of temperatures.

Signed yours truly in ultimate reality, compassion, and enlightenment,
Genius B. Dick.
Though some may insist on postulating the constant of once a dick always a dick, through assertion, in relation to the thread topic the constant is being, while not being is the delusion. Suffering, non-suffering, happiness and the rest are simply changing inferences of the transitory dream.
Locked