IT IS...

[unknown]

uUnderstand this people, before words , there was no theory. World was existed. After words world will still exists.

All this mathematical arguments ,logic, faith all based on arbitary assumptions.

Its all ILLUSIONS suspended in the middle(or somewhere).

The people who argue with mathematical equations are having strong belief based what they see. (factual). Fact is not real TRUTH.
It is accepted or agreed truth.

The more thing you can learn about yourself by questioning yourself directly or through someone than reading any books(beliefs).

You all need to understand how do you operate everyday. You are a m/c (sort of).

The magic is NEVER AGREE OR DISAGREE!.

peace
unknown

[zarathustra]

hey, unknown ( who doesn't exist ): I mean, yeah, but how do you know all this: have you been dead - whats it like? can you remember where you were before you were born? opps sorry, irrelevant...unknown does not exist....what's the point then?
but if you do exist - which I suspect you do at some terminal point in cyberspace - how do you KNOW? By faith? knowledge?
belief? did it just come to you in a dream? did you figure it out mathematically? did you have a vision on the road to your local pub, or from your local pub? you seem, nevertheless, in conversation with yourself, to have agreed or disagreed about many things - so why tell us not to follow your example? I mean for most propositions there are at least two sides - do you agree?

[unknown]

Hi zara,

You are 19. I want you to concentrate on something more mportant in your life.

Younger mind grows. It has to grow. it needs to fight. Philosophy should n't be your subject until you become 30.

Human brain has to grow and mature to its natural limits.

What i say will have anti growth effect for younger , growing brains unless you wish to make yourself mentally retarded soon. HAHAHAHA!.

Peace
unknown

[zarathustra]

just answer my questions.....pleeeease, I'm only a kid I need to know....

[sue hindmarsh]

Sevens wrote:

Your attempt to subjugate an entire gender

To subjugate one is to make a bid for freedom for the other.

What are you attempting to spin here? Certainly not Truth.

Truth doesn’t need any spin. It is spin-free.

The Nature of the Sexes contains hidden compartments - only accessible to those whose hearts have been gouged and purified. How else could you see correctly? Lover's hearts have forever been filled with an intoxicating eros - the wrong eros. Men first taste and learn this from their mother - imprinting a desire to further experience and expound upon it. Now, when a heart breaks, where is the eros left to go? - into the blood stream - as poison.

I wish there where more male hearts “gouged and purified”, then men would perhaps use their minds to nut out more profound matters. And then all that “eros” could go into a passion for Truth, instead of down the drain as refuse.

Any woman worthy of a man, would be able to discern what one truly is. And the importance of this realization within her, spins soot to silk.

What woman is worthy of a man?

How can man trust her “realization(s)”?

Spinning soot to silk is a specialty of Woman; she can make you believe that the love in her heart is infinite and everlasting, instead of rancid and debilitating.

And, of course, any man could pierce through delusion - into his, and into hers -

The delusion is his alone. Women have no delusions.

Sue

Edited: 28/10/05

[zarathustra]

you're starting to sound like the shadow-side of Q:

Q: you don't know, and I'm going to tell you what you don't know

Nothing: you don't have to know, so I'm not going to tell you.


do you agree?

[unknown]

ZARA, I say nothing. Young mind do not like nothingness. It does n't like to wander around. young mind wants to go fast towards the goal. It wants to achieve. it wants to win.

Winning is relative when you get old.

I don't need to say anything. What i say is usless crap to you. That is the truth.

You make your world ( illusion) , when you do not exists , illusion will die.

As yound kid , you need to believe whatever the crap you want to believe. I rather wants to be fiesty. Thats shows life and struggle...

its fun.

Ask questions then and there...to your own mind.

peace
unknown

[Matt Gregory]

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:

Reality is all about beginnings and ends – or the lack of them. To find out if a “thing” can have an existence, I always find it easiest to use a simple example, such as a cup, and then trace its existence back to see if it has a beginning.

For example: The cup is made of clay, which comes from the Earth, which comes from the Sun, which comes from the Big Bang, which comes from the Bing Bang before it, and so on and so forth.

I can do the same exercise tracing the cup’s future. The cup breaks and is thrown into the rubbish heap, where it breaks down into the Earth, which is vaporized by the exploding Sun, which then becomes part of the Big Crunch, which sets off the Big Bang, and so on and so forth.

With that as a format I change the “thing”, for another “thing”, for example; a thought, or a horse, or a feeling, and try and find its beginning or end, and in so doing practice seeing the infinite.

Matt, you've probably done this exercise many times yourself, but it is such a useful tool in breaking through those seemly impenetrable walls.

Yeah, I have done that. Probably not enough, though.

[zarathustra]

is Q gay?

[Matt Gregory]

How the hell would I know? This isn't a singles board anyway.

[Jason]

Matt Gregory wrote:

Reality itself must be a matter of thinking of all my experiences as one object, but I can't do it and I fail to see where the difficulty lies.

Reality is all about beginnings and ends – or the lack of them. To find out if a “thing” can have an existence, I always find it easiest to use a simple example, such as a cup, and then trace its existence back to see if it has a beginning.

For example: The cup is made of clay, which comes from the Earth, which comes from the Sun, which comes from the Big Bang, which comes from the Bing Bang before it, and so on and so forth.

I can do the same exercise tracing the cup’s future. The cup breaks and is thrown into the rubbish heap, where it breaks down into the Earth, which is vaporized by the exploding Sun, which then becomes part of the Big Crunch, which sets off the Big Bang, and so on and so forth.

With that as a format I change the “thing”, for another “thing”, for example; a thought, or a horse, or a feeling, and try and find its beginning or end, and in so doing practice seeing the infinite.

Matt, you've probably done this exercise many times yourself, but it is such a useful tool in breaking through those seemly impenetrable walls.


Sue

That exercise is relying upon the assumption of an external world as well as past situations that you are simply creating with your imagination. It also supposes that specific causes can be linked with utter certainty to specific effects(e.g. flip a siwtch to cause a light to turn on). This completely discredits it and renders it useless.

This is why in the past I have argued that the terms "causation" and "cause" as used by David, Dan and others are poorly chosen and likely to lead people in the direction of the scientific/dominoes-like idea of cause and effect which is exactly what you have done. You seem to have had a lot of contact with David's ideas and yet you still fall into that trap, exhibiting my point perfectly.

[Matt Gregory]

No, it's about the logic underpinning the process rather than the process itself. The point is to tune the mind into this logic so it's automatic.

[zarathustra]

pavlov's dog...

[Matt Gregory]

You have to have a deep understanding of conditioning before you can stop being a slave to it.

[David Quinn]

Jason wrote:

This is why in the past I have argued that the terms "causation" and "cause" as used by David, Dan and others are poorly chosen and likely to lead people in the direction of the scientific/dominoes-like idea of cause and effect which is exactly what you have done.

Dominoes-like causality is the reality of everything that happens around us. Any process that occurs over a period of time is comprised of dominoes-like causality. So I'm not sure what your problem is.

Understanding this doesn't require one to assume the existence of an external world, or the existence of the past, nor does it require one to remain stuck in a scientific mentality. So why are you linking them together? Is it, perhaps, that you have an allergy to being a part of the physical world? Do you prefer to hide away in a conceptual world?

Jason, are you still stuck on the idea that everything is in your own mind?

Exploring the reality of dominoes-like causality is just one part of the overall process of breaking down the illusion of inherent existence. Other parts include exploring the truth that everything we experience is a creation of our consciousness; that everything is relative; that things only exist in the moment and nowhere else; and so on. You need to integrate all these realities together, including the reality of dominoes-like causality, in order to attain the highest understanding.

-

[sue hindmarsh]

Matt Gregory wrote:

it's about the logic underpinning the process rather than the process itself. The point is to tune the mind into this logic so it's automatic.

Yes, and when it is “automatic”, all that effort of ‘seeing through’ things is finished with and it just becomes part of your normal day.

What can block people from understanding cause and effect is their desire for the meaning of all things, to be ‘something other’ than them themselves. This fantasy, left over from childhood, begs for there to be something bigger and better than their tiny selves. When they look at cause and effect, all they see is a swirling mismatch, which neither comforts, nor engages them.

But of course it can’t comfort, or engage, until you come to see that cause and effect is ‘you’. That it is impossible for you to extradite yourself from it. Only when you allow yourself to dissolve into it, does it truly make any sense.

Sue

[sevens]

Sue and David,

Why does the mind dream?

And, who were the first Geniuses?

(Or, Genii -- if you like)

[David Quinn]

sevens,

Why does the mind dream?

Desire.

And, who were the first Geniuses?

Who knows? Perhaps it was some long-forgotten Cro-Magnon man. The earliest records that I know of feature Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, several centuries BC, talking about the "wisdom of the ancients". But I don't think they knew their names or anything about them.

-

[sevens]

Desire.

Is that all you see?

How can you call yourself a true philosopher, when you give Reality a

half-hearted reply -- masked as Ultimate Knowledge?

-

The great sages of the past, like the first geniuses (shamans), utilized the

entire mind - enabling Nature to become it. This is where unity is found;

in the abstract mind - and with lethal logic.

[Jason]

Jason wrote:

This is why in the past I have argued that the terms "causation" and "cause" as used by David, Dan and others are poorly chosen and likely to lead people in the direction of the scientific/dominoes-like idea of cause and effect which is exactly what you have done.

Dominoes-like causality is the reality of everything that happens around us. Any process that occurs over a period of time is comprised of dominoes-like causality. So I'm not sure what your problem is.

I am talking about the uncertainties inherent in linking such things as the flicking of a switch to a light turning on. As opposed to the idea of a light exists because of non-light. That is what I am referring to with the "dominoes-like" idea. This is the same uncertain principle Sue is using with her cup and it's creation from clay and so on.


Understanding this doesn't require one to assume the existence of an external world, or the existence of the past, nor does it require one to remain stuck in a scientific mentality. So why are you linking them together? Is it, perhaps, that you have an allergy to being a part of the physical world? Do you prefer to hide away in a conceptual world?

Jason, are you still stuck on the idea that everything is in your own mind?

Exploring the reality of dominoes-like causality is just one part of the overall process of breaking down the illusion of inherent existence. Other parts include exploring the truth that everything we experience is a creation of our consciousness; that everything is relative; that things only exist in the moment and nowhere else; and so on. You need to integrate all these realities together, including the reality of dominoes-like causality, in order to attain the highest understanding.

-[/quote]

[David Quinn]

seven,

Desire.

Is that all you see?

How can you call yourself a true philosopher, when you give Reality a

half-hearted reply -- masked as Ultimate Knowledge?

I realize that it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear. But nevertheless, it all boils down to desire. The Buddha used to say that all things are created by desire, which is a very profound observation.

The great sages of the past, like the first geniuses (shamans), utilized the

entire mind - enabling Nature to become it. This is where unity is found;

in the abstract mind - and with lethal logic.

What does this mean exactly? Can you be more specific? At the moment, it sounds too much like empty New Age twaddle.

-

[David Quinn]

Jason,

I am talking about the uncertainties inherent in linking such things as the flicking of a switch to a light turning on. As opposed to the idea of a light exists because of non-light. That is what I am referring to with the "dominoes-like" idea. This is the same uncertain principle Sue is using with her cup and it's creation from clay and so on.

It's true that we can't know for certain that the flicking of the switch is directly linked to the light turning on. But even so, the light is caused by processes of some kind, and thus we know for certain that it does come into existence in a dominoes-like manner. To affirm otherwise would be to affirm the fallacy that the light sprang into being uncaused.

As far as our philosophical purposes are concerned, it doesn't really matter that we can't directly link things together in an empirical sense. For the fact remains that they are linked together out of logical necessity, as all things are.

-

[Jason]

My last post was accidentally sent only partly complete here is the proper finished version:

Jason wrote:

This is why in the past I have argued that the terms "causation" and "cause" as used by David, Dan and others are poorly chosen and likely to lead people in the direction of the scientific/dominoes-like idea of cause and effect which is exactly what you have done.

Dominoes-like causality is the reality of everything that happens around us. Any process that occurs over a period of time is comprised of dominoes-like causality. So I'm not sure what your problem is.

With dominoes-like causation I am referring to uncertainties in the type of "causation" which links the flicking of a switch to a lightbulb emitting light. The way I read it this type of causation is what Sue is using with her cup and its creation from clay. This is as opposed to the certainty of a cup existing because of non-cup. This is why I prefer using the word "identity". I think it is more effective in dealing with the as-is reality rather than the imagined past/external reality and it deals with the as-is of A and NotA rather than the might-have-been of A,B,C,D of big-bang, matter, clay, cup.

Understanding this doesn't require one to assume the existence of an external world, or the existence of the past, nor does it require one to remain stuck in a scientific mentality. So why are you linking them together?

Sues examples clearly speak of the past and even the Big Bang, which shows the assumption of an external world, past events etc.

Is it, perhaps, that you have an allergy to being a part of the physical world? Do you prefer to hide away in a conceptual world? Jason, are you still stuck on the idea that everything is in your own mind?

I never remember saying that I thought everything was is in my mind, neither have I ever believed it.

Exploring the reality of dominoes-like causality is just one part of the overall process of breaking down the illusion of inherent existence. Other parts include exploring the truth that everything we experience is a creation of our consciousness; that everything is relative; that things only exist in the moment and nowhere else; and so on. You need to integrate all these realities together, including the reality of dominoes-like causality, in order to attain the highest understanding.
-

I favour the use of that which is certain to find certainty. The here and now of my senses, thoughts, feelings etc is it, not the Big Bang or other imagined past states of things like cups. It seems Sue and Matt are now arguing that it is the results that matter and not the process. I disagree. As far as I am concerned if part of the process is corrupted by uncertainty then the result is also prone to corruption. If certainty is the goal the only use for uncertainty is as pointer to that which should be disregarded.

[David Quinn]

Jason,

With dominoes-like causation I am referring to uncertainties in the type of "causation" which links the flicking of a switch to a lightbulb emitting light. The way I read it this type of causation is what Sue is using with her cup and its creation from clay. This is as opposed to the certainty of a cup existing because of non-cup. This is why I prefer using the word "identity". I think it is more effective in dealing with the as-is reality rather than the imagined past/external reality and it deals with the as-is of A and NotA rather than the might-have-been of A,B,C,D of big-bang, matter, clay, cup.

Then how do you deal with the reality of physical change?

DQ: Understanding this doesn't require one to assume the existence of an external world, or the existence of the past, nor does it require one to remain stuck in a scientific mentality. So why are you linking them together?

J: Sues examples clearly speak of the past and even the Big Bang, which shows the assumption of an external world, past events etc.

The past, together with the Big Bang, does exist as an appearance. This appearance is very real - we can't pretend otherwise. This doesn't mean we have to assert that the past exists as an independent, objective reality. But we do need to acknowledge its existence as an appearance.

DQ: Is it, perhaps, that you have an allergy to being a part of the physical world? Do you prefer to hide away in a conceptual world? Jason, are you still stuck on the idea that everything is in your own mind?

J: I never remember saying that I thought everything was is in my mind, neither have I ever believed it.

On what basis, then, are you questioning the existence of the past and the Big Bang?

DQ: Exploring the reality of dominoes-like causality is just one part of the overall process of breaking down the illusion of inherent existence. Other parts include exploring the truth that everything we experience is a creation of our consciousness; that everything is relative; that things only exist in the moment and nowhere else; and so on. You need to integrate all these realities together, including the reality of dominoes-like causality, in order to attain the highest understanding.

J: I favour the use of that which is certain to find certainty. The here and now of my senses, thoughts, feelings etc is it, not the Big Bang or other imagined past states of things like cups. It seems Sue and Matt are now arguing that it is the results that matter and not the process. I disagree. As far as I am concerned if part of the process is corrupted by uncertainty then the result is also prone to corruption. If certainty is the goal the only use for uncertainty is as pointer to that which should be disregarded.

That the appearance of the past presents itself to our minds is a certainty. And it is just as real as any other appearance that occurs in the present.

-

[sevens]

David,

"A=A is a powerful weapon. But, it is only a component of Ultimate Truth. The truths that the Quantum World holds, only reflect those you arrive at after A=A is solidified, and exhaled. What you find in the vapor trail, is a universe that revolves around linear and non-linear time (essentially, 'no time'). Causality, in all its glory, is as vast and complex, as the Quantum World -- scanning events in the NOW, through linear and non-linear thought - for Energy. When your world becomes a universe of the Self (arrived at through these dynamic thought patterns), then, Creation is possible. You transcend the duality of A=A, and enter into 1=1 -- enabling the alignment and linking of events, into and through, Infinity."

True. Desire is at the root of every human. But you speak of it as if it were to be shunned - for some higher truth. I tell you, you're inability to separate yourself from what you perceive as lesser, traps you in a world of David = Not David. You've got the principles down - but your disdain for art, or perhaps 'femininity', completely cuts you off from regions of the mind that upload A=A into Reality.