Re: staff

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)
Locked
John
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:40 pm

Re: staff

Post by John »

Rhett
-------------------------------------------
Rhett, do you really accept the above nonesense, that the staff ceases to exist when it is outside of his awareness! No wonder women aren't interested in (this sort of) enlightenment.
-------------------------------------------
Your distaste for the truth that things (ie. the staff) cease to exist when outside of your experience is most likely related to that.

Would it not be more truthful and correct to say - one has no way of knowing if the staff exists or not when it is no longer perceived by one?

All we can say is that the deluded mind sees things as either existing or non-existing.

John
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: staff

Post by Rhett »

-------------------------------------------
Anna: Rhett, do you really accept the above nonesense, that the staff ceases
to exist when it is outside of his awareness! No wonder women aren't
interested in (this sort of) enlightenment.
-------------------------------------------
Rhett: Your distaste for the truth that things (ie. the staff) cease to
exist when outside of your experience is most likely related to that.


John: Would it not be more truthful and correct to say - one has no way of
knowing if the staff exists or not when it is no longer perceived by
one?


No. There are a number of ways we can tackle this:

1. Since you are asserting that the staff may exist even when it is not
being experienced, philosophically speaking, i can put the onus on you to
prove that proposition. Seriously, i am interested to know why you think
that something you experience in one moment can continue to exist after you
have finished experiencing it (?). Baffles me!


2. The roundabout way. The staff can only exist as an appearance, because
only through appearing can it have form (as a staff). In the absence of an
observer, there is nothing which can be identified as being a staff. Any
appearance that we care to imagine would just be an appearance of our
imagination (obviously).

If a bat flew past, it would not distinguish the Totality in the same manner
as you or i might do. If it labels it's experiences at all, it might label
the portion of the Totality that we labelled a 'staff' in with a few other
things and consider them in a homogenous manner, and the 'staff' would
certainly present a different appearance to what we see. The bat sees with
echo's, we see with photons of light. Neither the bat or ourselves are
wrong, what is experienced is all that could possibly be said to be 'right'.

Think of anything and then cut it up into an infinity of slices, and then
think about how many ways it could be viewed. Then apply that to the
Totality. It's capable of an infinity of appearances, what's to say that the
particular view that you have at any moment in time is the 'right' one?
There
is no right view, and each time you look at the staff it appears
differently, the appearance of the staff is constantly in flux. People try
so hard to make reality rigid, to make it conform to the rigidity of their
static concepts, without realising that the nature of reality is anything
but static.

Consider that even in the moment that you experience a staff you can't even
see all of it to know exactly the manner of it's existence. In any moment it
is 2 dimensional to us, we cannot possibly experience a 3D image, even
though things do seem 3D. We are constantly engaging in conceptual creations
without even realising it, we often rotate things in our mind to see all of
it, and then we think that this image is certain and true. Yet how often
people are shocked when they turn out to be wrong about something. When
things turn out different from what people expect - they are often visibly
jolted by the experience. Artists play on this bad habit of humans by making
works that surprise people in this manner.

Another thing to note is that the staff that you leave in a room could
easily be removed and destroyed by something else, so why engage in thought
about it unnecessarily when one is not in it's direct presence?


3. The quick way. To take a big jump from this, we could at any moment in
time be presented with evidence that our life is just a computer simulation,
so in this instance the staff only ever existed as a few 0's and 1's during
the moment of out experience of it, and might well never be experienced
again during the remainder of the programs running.






All we can say is that the deluded mind sees things as either existing or
non-existing.

How can any mind, deluded or wise, see a non-existing thing? Perhaps if you
explain what you mean by the term 'non-existing'.

The deluded mind perceives things as being inherently finite, and upon this
develops all manner of additional false notions.

The enlightened mind is wholly undeluded.


Rhett

voce io
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:05 am

Re: staff

Post by voce io »

Seriously, i am interested to know why you think
that something you experience in one moment can continue to exist after you
have finished experiencing it (?).

Abductive reasoning, fool!
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: staff

Post by birdofhermes »

Quote:Quote:<hr>For me, women = attachment. They value attachment more than anything else i can think of at this moment.

Your distaste for the truth that things (ie. the staff) cease to exist when outside of your experience is most likely related to that. It would make quite a mess of your attachments!<hr>

Rhett, I apparently missed this response to me.

I don't know about that supposition. What does it have to do with my attachments? I mean, I am going to leave this life one day. What difference does it make what the nature of material things is?

It just seems silly to me, that's all.

My best supposition about the appearance of matter is that it is dependent upon some prior condition, such as consciousness. QRS say it is not secondary but simultaneous. Even if that is so, my main objection is this assumption that our human brains are the awareness responsible for the existence of a stick, and that it could disappear when I, personally, don't view it.

That strikes me as an absurdity.
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: staff

Post by Rhett »

Rhett: Seriously, i am interested to know why you think
that something you experience in one moment can continue to exist after you
have finished experiencing it (?).


Voce: Abductive reasoning, fool!


I'm sure people will take it in the manner in which it was intended.

It's easy for people to think that the enlightened don't really experience the world differently, that they just have these truths which they try to impress upon people, and which require constant attention to achieve anything with, if anything can be achieved with them at all.

Every moment that you are having experiences, nature is telling you the truth, so upon Enlightenment nature is on your side (in that respect anyway), it's affirming your understandings.

It's easy to think that people such as Kevin are poring and sweating over every email they write, trying to conjure up those abstract notions that he's come to understand.

Upon Perfection, the truth would be even easier to speak than the foolish talk that most people speak...


Rhett
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: staff

Post by birdofhermes »

I guess I should have read through your answer to John before answering.

If that is all you have to offer!!!!!!!!!

My answer to number one is: because I am no longer an infant.

My answer to number two is: The variability in perception is certainly fascinating, and quite irrelevant. To say we need not worry about it when we leave the room is similarly a nonargument. And to say it isn't real when not being viewed by us because, after all, we don't know absolutely everything there is to know about the stick is fatuous. We have not yet plumbed the depths of matter. So?

My answer to number three: Oh, gimme a break. In that case, there is little to discuss about reality or our ability to think about it.

And you can get away with this sort of intellectual drivel because you are male! I tell you it is unfair!
Edited by: birdofhermes at: 1/22/04 12:15 pm
John
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:40 pm

Re: staff

Post by John »

Rhett
John: Would it not be more truthful and correct to say - one has no way of knowing if the staff exists or not when it is no longer perceived by one?

No. There are a number of ways we can tackle this:

1. Since you are asserting that the staff may exist even when it is not being experienced, philosophically speaking, i can put the onus on you to prove that proposition. Seriously, i am interested to know why you think that something you experience in one moment can continue to exist after you have finished experiencing it (?). Baffles me!

It seems you have become lost in a world of ideas.

So, Rhett is walking along the beach when this guy comes up behind him and whacks him over the head with a staff. Rhett falls to the ground dazed - the guy leans over him threateningly with the staff and shouts, "So does the staff exist or not?" Rhett stammers back, "Of course it exists now, because you hit me with it!"

We must conclude then, that the staff is magically spontaneously produced at the instant it strikes Rhett.

<snip>

Another thing to note is that the staff that you leave in a room could easily be removed and destroyed by something else

Now you're talking, so it does exist then!!

so why engage in thought about it unnecessarily when one is not in it's direct presence?

It is you who engage in such nonsense.

Go study koans.

John
voce io
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:05 am

Re: staff

Post by voce io »

Rhett, you're right in your last post. You're most likely wrong in the fact that things don't exist when you don't view them. I mean, if such a thing were true, you wouldn't be existing when I wasn't aware of you, and I wouldn't be existing when you weren't aware of me. Do you see where this gets insane?

You can then conclude, in your little theory, that people are unreal, and only appear to you. You are only making your individual consciousness more important than it actually is. It APPEARS as if things cease to exist when you aren't directly viewing them, but that's entirely it - an appearance. If you're going to speculate based on appearances, why not just go for the sensible conclusion, which is - there is continuity in the existence of things.

Also, why would you be conversing with things that are going to cease existing as soon as they leave your sight? Why do you come online and talk on the Genius Forum, if it ceases to exist when you aren't online. In this type of thinking, how can you learn anything?

You aren't enlightened, at all.
WolfsonJakk
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:50 pm

Re: staff

Post by WolfsonJakk »

It is irrelevant whether or not the staff exists. What matters is the fact that it hit your head.

I personally cannot say whether or not it truly hit your head, but I can notice your behavior. Only you truly know whether or not the thing struck you or if that thing even exists.

Not to mention, large pickles hurt when used by a professional and can sometimes be mistaken for staffs.

Tharan
John
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:40 pm

Re: staff

Post by John »

WolfsonJakk
----------------------------------------------------
It is irrelevant whether or not the staff exists. What matters is the fact that it hit your head.

Without either concept of exists/non-exists - I pick up the staff, that's it! One is free to use it.

Not to mention, large pickles hurt when used by a professional and can sometimes be mistaken for staffs.

The staff used varies but the use of the staff never ends it is the essential function!

John
Edited by: John at: 1/22/04 6:28 pm
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: staff

Post by Rhett »


Anna: My answer to number one is: because I am no longer an infant.

That's hardly a line of reasoning...




Anna: My answer to number two is: The variability in perception is certainly fascinating, and quite irrelevant. To say we need not worry about it when we leave the room is similarly a nonargument. And to say it isn't real when not being viewed by us because, after all, we don't know absolutely everything there is to know about the stick is fatuous. We have not yet plumbed the depths of matter. So?

I am quite aware that a number of the points in answer two were ultimately 'weak'. I put them in to get you thinking, to soften up your mind. I was experimenting (something i could be said to be doing with every email) with a soft approach, because based on my previous experience if i go straight to a harder line of reasoning - to the crux of the issue - people just glaze over.





Anna: My answer to number three: Oh, gimme a break. In that case, there is little to discuss about reality or our ability to think about it.

Oh, but there most certainly is...

We can still ascertain the most important knowledge known to man regardless of empirical uncertainty. A=A is an invincible truth, upon which we can create basic logic truths, and upon which we can lead the most gracious of existences.



Rhett
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: staff

Post by Rhett »

Rhett:
1. Since you are asserting that the staff may exist even when it is not being experienced, philosophically speaking, i can put the onus on you to prove that proposition. Seriously, i am interested to know why you think that something you experience in one moment can continue to exist after you have finished experiencing it (?). Baffles me!


John: It seems you have become lost in a world of ideas.

So, Rhett is walking along the beach when this guy comes up behind him and whacks him over the head with a staff. Rhett falls to the ground dazed - the guy leans over him threateningly with the staff and shouts, "So does the staff exist or not?" Rhett stammers back, "Of course it exists now, because you hit me with it!"

We must conclude then, that the staff is magically spontaneously produced at the instant it strikes Rhett.


Rhett: The staff never really exists. It only ever exists - to me - in the moment of it making an appearance to me as a seemingly real object.

It's also likely that it exists, for a period of time, as a seemingly real object and as a conceptual creation to the clod who hit me.





Rhett: so why engage in thought about it unnecessarily when one is not in it's direct presence?

John: It is you who engage in such nonsense.

Are you married John? Have kids? Or a girlfriend? Or close relatives and/or friends? Do you not experience thoughts and fears about them when they are not in your presence? Thoughts that have little bearing on your subsequent interactions with them?




John: Go study koans.

I am, but I haven't found any hard enough yet. I'll keep you posted though.


Rhett
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: staff

Post by Rhett »

Voce: Rhett, you're right in your last post. You're most likely wrong in the fact that things don't exist when you don't view them. I mean, if such a thing were true, you wouldn't be existing when I wasn't aware of you, and I wouldn't be existing when you weren't aware of me. Do you see where this gets insane?

Just because you no longer exist as a concept to me ("Voce"), doesn't mean much.

You can only ever exist as an indivisible portion of the Infinite (notice the illogic in 'indivisible portion', ie, it's just bullshit), as an appearance to mind of a seemingly finite entity (which only occurs as a construct of someone's consciousness, so it's not really you), and/or as a concept "Voce" (which i'm sure you'll agree is not you either).

So where in all this is the real Voce?

Nowhere.




Voce: You can then conclude, in your little theory, that people are unreal, and only appear to you. You are only making your individual consciousness more important than it actually is. It APPEARS as if things cease to exist when you aren't directly viewing them, but that's entirely it - an appearance. If you're going to speculate based on appearances, why not just go for the sensible conclusion, which is - there is continuity in the existence of things.

I've gone wholly beyond such thoughts because they're riddled with faulty reasoning.




Voce: Also, why would you be conversing with things that are going to cease existing as soon as they leave your sight? Why do you come online and talk on the Genius Forum, if it ceases to exist when you aren't online. In this type of thinking, how can you learn anything?

Wisdom has a life of it's own, through cause and effect. It's quite independant of your rigid and ill-conceived perspective on the matter.


Rhett
Thomas Knierim
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 6:20 pm

Re: staff

Post by Thomas Knierim »

<span style="color:white;">Rhett: The deluded mind perceives things as being inherently finite, and upon this develops all manner of additional false notions.

The enlightened mind is wholly undeluded.

I've gone wholly beyond such thoughts because they're riddled with faulty reasoning.</span>

Oh dear! It is a long time ago since such presumptuous bombast has been posted here. Memories of the early days of QRS enlightenment come back.

Thomas
John
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:40 pm

Re: staff

Post by John »

Rhett
We must conclude then, that the staff is magically spontaneously produced at the instant it strikes Rhett.

The staff never really exists.

You are saying that a non-existant staff hits a non-existant Rhett and causes non-existant pain in a non-existant head. Can a non-existant thing be a cause, can there be a non-existant effect? To state that these things do not really exist has no real significance, one still experiences pain - to say that the pain is unreal does not diminish its effect.

It only ever exists - to me - in the moment of it making an appearance to me as a seemingly real object.

That's true but in no way does that prove that it does not exist. The boundaries of the mug on my desk are uncertain but the reality of the mug holding liquid holds true. To remain on one side is only a partial view.

It also exists as an object to you anytime you imagine that it does not exist. The notion of a 'non-existant thing' is nonsense.

Are you married John? Have kids? Or a girlfriend? Or close relatives and/or friends? Do you not experience thoughts and fears about them when they are not in your presence? Thoughts that have little bearing on your subsequent interactions with them?

Rarely.

John: Go study koans.

I am, but I haven't found any hard enough yet.

What valid reasons do you have for saying that?

John
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: staff

Post by Rhett »

John: We must conclude then, that the staff is magically spontaneously produced at the instant it strikes Rhett.

Rhett: The staff never really exists.

John: You are saying that a non-existant staff hits...

The staff does exist, as i mentioned in my response. It exists in the mind of the thug. It may also have existed in others minds.




John: ...hits a non-existant Rhett...

I did exist at this moment, at the very least in the mind of the thug, if not in my own or anyone elses standing by.




John: ...and causes non-existant pain

Since i am feeling pain, the pain exists.




John: in a non-existant head.

My head exists in the mind of the thug or he wouldn't have been able to deliberatetly hit it. Once i feel pain my head probably starts to exist for me too!




John: Can a non-existant thing be a cause, can there be a non-existant effect?

No, 'cause and effect' and 'things' arise together, and are only present as constructs within consciousness.





John: To state that these things do not really exist has no real significance, one still experiences pain - to say that the pain is unreal does not diminish its effect.

Anyone that comes to understand the nature of existence considers it extremely significant. It has ramifications beyond most people's wildest imagination, and it is life-changing.

And yes, those changes extend to the experience of pain. Most people experience far more than just pain when they are hit on the head. Consider just how intimitely involved the ego is with pain...all manner of fears are triggered, which run through a persons mind and make the experience far worse than it actually was, often rendering the actual pain insignificant in the process.




Rhett: It only ever exists - to me - in the moment of it making an appearance to me as a seemingly real object.

John: That's true, but in no way does that prove that it does not exist. The boundaries of the mug on my desk are uncertain but the reality of the mug holding liquid holds true. To remain on one side is only a partial view.

It is you that have tried to make me seem lopsided, your responses aren't particularly appropriate to what i wrote.




John: It also exists as an object to you anytime you imagine that it does not exist. The notion of a 'non-existant thing' is nonsense.

You've contradicted yourself here. Regarding your first point, how can i imagine a non-existent object (thing)?

I totally agree with your latter point. (Did it seem to you that i made a mistake regarding this earlier?).


Rhett

suergaz

---

Post by suergaz »

Quote:Quote:<hr>how can i imagine a non-existent object (thing)?<hr>

That is all you can do! You don't think you can realize such an object do you?!
John
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:40 pm

Re: staff

Post by John »

Rhett

Rhett: The staff never really exists.
John: You are saying that a non-existant staff hits...

The staff does exist, as i mentioned in my response. It exists in the mind of the thug. It may also have existed in others minds.

But you said "The staff never really exists" !

John: Can a non-existant thing be a cause, can there be a non-existant effect?

No, 'cause and effect' and 'things' arise together, and are only present as constructs within consciousness.

And so are 'existence' and 'nonexistence'! In fact 'existence' and 'non-existence' have no reality outside of your mind. I suggest both mental constructs are in fact unreal.

John: It also exists as an object to you anytime you imagine that it does not exist. The notion of a 'non-existant thing' is nonsense.

You've contradicted yourself here. Regarding your first point, how can i imagine a non-existent object (thing)?

So, to talk about something being non-existant is nonsense. Which is the overall point I'm making.

John: Go study koans.
I am, but I haven't found any hard enough yet.

Your response to the koan of this thread btw, "The Short Staff" was less than mediocre.

John


Edited by: John at: 1/24/04 8:33 pm
voce io
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:05 am

Re: staff

Post by voce io »

Rhett, I don't even know why I'm still trying to get you to see your faults, but whatever, I will go on.

Just because you no longer exist as a concept to me ("Voce"), doesn't mean much.

Right, concepts appearing and disappearing doesn't mean much.

You can only ever exist as an indivisible portion of the Infinite

"The Infinite"? I didn't know it was possible to say such a thing! How can I exist as anything BUT what you've described? How can anyone think they can exist as anything but what you've said? Not a single person has ever actually concieved of such a thing, and no one ever will.

as an appearance to mind of a seemingly finite entity (which only occurs as a construct of someone's consciousness, so it's not really you)

Right, it is fleeting; just as these ideas you're having. Stop trying to be right, making beliefs, and just let things happen, Rhett. You're missing the mark because you're trying too damn hard to hit it (it's not actually what you're aiming for).

and/or as a concept "Voce" (which i'm sure you'll agree is not you either).

I don't agree a concept is me. Think about this, though: when you were younger, a little baby, playing with your toys...were the ideas of your toys - THE TOYS...or were the uncontrollable forces that made them appear as toys, the toys themselves?

So where in all this is the real Voce?

If you are looking for voce, stop talking of 'infinite' and 'finite'. Stop thinking about 'conceptualization' and 'non-conceptualization'. Shut up about 'appearing' and 'not appearing'. Don't even start with 'mind' versus 'not mind', and 'consciousness' versus 'unconsciousness'.

Nowhere.

Everywhere you look, mother fucker.
voce io
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 12:05 am

Re: staff

Post by voce io »

Whoops, there was more...

I've gone wholly beyond such thoughts because they're riddled with faulty reasoning.

All of the reasoning I've seen you presenting here hasn't been too sturdy.

Wisdom has a life of it's own, through cause and effect. It's quite independant of your rigid and ill-conceived perspective on the matter.

"Rigid" and "ill-conceived" perspective?
Locked