GENIUS FORUMS

mikiel wrote:Does your brain, from which the concept of "inherent existence" springs, have "inherent existence?"
m

David said "all things" lack inherent existence, so the answer to your question should be obvious.

Dan Rowden wrote:

mikiel wrote:Does your brain, from which the concept of "inherent existence" springs, have "inherent existence?"
m

David said "all things" lack inherent existence, so the answer to your question should be obvious.

I'll take that as a "no." So how does this philosophy differ from my critique... that it asserts that "nothing is real... It's *all* just in our minds!"
Define your usage of "inherent."
Your brain, and David's do not "inherently" exist?

Gotta go. Maybe tomorrow I will have time to explain the finer points and varieties of idealism to you and you can tell me again how your philosophy differs from the abject absurdity of solipsism.
m

mikiel wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:

mikiel wrote:Does your brain, from which the concept of "inherent existence" springs, have "inherent existence?"
m

David said "all things" lack inherent existence, so the answer to your question should be obvious.

I'll take that as a "no." So how does this philosophy differ from my critique... that it asserts that "nothing is real... It's *all* just in our minds!"

I can't answer that as I don't see how you get from "things lack inherent existence" to "nothing is real" or, worse, "everything is in our minds". What matters is what you intend by the terms "exist" and "real". I happen to not think things are either real or illusory.

Define your usage of "inherent."

Able to exist of itself, separate from its causes - or anything.

Your brain, and David's do not "inherently" exist?

No, it's impossible for anything to exist inherently. Things require what they are not to exist.

Gotta go. Maybe tomorrow I will have time to explain the finer points and varieties of idealism to you and you can tell me again how your philosophy differs from the abject absurdity of solipsism.

Ok.

Some believe that energy is "lost in space" as cosmos expands to the outer reaches and that cosmos will eventually just "run out of steam" and dissipate into maximum cosmic entropy.

or...do running out of time solve a mystery?

My computer crashed (again) mid reply and lost it. This will be brief.
You defined inherent as "Able to exist of itself, separate from its causes - or anything."
This explains to me where you are coming from on this whole "existence-and-reality" issue.
I've said a few hundred times here myself that nothing is "separate" from the whole and everything is inter-connected. Yet the manifest world/cosmos exists... is real, as does consciousness itself transcending manifest creation... the conscious Being, Kosmos, the body of Whom is cosmos. (But I repeat what I've said dozens of times.)
You wrote:

What matters is what you intend by the terms "exist" and "real". I happen to not think things are either real or illusory.

What then are you asserting? I say that the objective cosmos exists in reality. I also know from direct mystic experience, gnosis, that Kosmos is the One Conscious Being, tho that is not an "objective fact" as is the existence of the cosmos. I do recognise the difference.
So, back to DQ's opening criticism:

A transcendent being obsessed with the shapes and scientific grounding of consciousness's illusions. Most amusing.

...
Do you agree that cosmos and the scientific study of it is all "consciousness's illusions."
I suppose your answer to what is neither real or illusory will also answer the above, but will you spell it out for me?
mikiel

HYPNOSIS wrote:

Some believe that energy is "lost in space" as cosmos expands to the outer reaches and that cosmos will eventually just "run out of steam" and dissipate into maximum cosmic entropy.

or...do running out of time solve a mystery?

What, exactly, do you think "time" is, that cosmos can "run out" of it? Do you believe in a beginning and end of time?
m

Dan,
Re: your post of 7/10 and my reply on 7/11...

Prompt: "Do you agree that cosmos and the scientific study of it is all "consciousness's illusions?"
I suppose your answer to what is neither real or illusory will also answer the above, but will you spell it out for me?"

I'll have to take 'no reply' as a "no" and assume you are in denial of the objective reality/existence of cosmos and, with DQ, dismissive of science as "consciousness's illusions."
m

I see, in the "Beyond God and Evil" thread where DQ said:

Nature being uncaused means that it doesn't have a first cause. Cause and effect extends back indefinitely.

Even if Nature was somehow locked into a repeating loop, it would still be a case of cause and effect extending back indefinitely.

So, David, how is it that it's ligitimate to study "Nature" but the study of cosmos, as a whole is "consciousness's illusions?"

The perpetual cycle of expansion and contraction (bang/crunch) I have seen and studied in depth *is* Nature in a repeating loop.

I agree that there is no "first cause".... (Where did it all come from?... out of nothing?... there is no beginning or end of "time." Now is perpetual, not segmented into "time units.")

Anyway if I changed all references to "cosmos" into "nature", would that redeam the this thread from the judgement that science is all illusory consciousness in your mind?

.


The Big Crunch will happen after an infinite time

The actual infinite exists (Cantor), not only the potential. Which means it will be reached, the Big Crunch.

The "actual infinite" is oxymoron. You cannot reach the infinite by the same way, like the intersection of parallel lines - or we should redefine the existence concept.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbth ... mber=27178


.

Tomas wrote:.


The Big Crunch will happen after an infinite time

The actual infinite exists (Cantor), not only the potential. Which means it will be reached, the Big Crunch.

The "actual infinite" is oxymoron. You cannot reach the infinite by the same way, like the intersection of parallel lines - or we should redefine the existence concept.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbth ... mber=27178


.

My offering here, late night, is a highlight on this statement:
"The Big Crunch will happen after an infinite time"

I ask the forum, does "after an infinite time" make any sense to you... anyone?
Of course "infinite time" is an obvious oxymoron, proposed by a moron. It's called eternity by those who know. Oxymoron: A statement with internal contradiction. It contradicts itself... what is infinite has no "after" which denotes a finite boundary... Just such a stupid thing to say!

No one knows how long (in Earth years!!) a full cosmic bang/crunch cycle takes, but the Crunch will happen, as Tomas promised, in due time (the perpetual NOW), after the expansion reverses and "it all' comes back 'home' and goes "bang" again.

"like the interaction of parallell lines"....

Ummm... they don't "interact." Please go into depth on your understanding of non-Euclidean geometry. Sometimes I enjoy a cat-'n-mouse game. And 'intersecting parallel lines"' is another oxymoron... a defining moment of stupidity for anyone who proposes it.

Oh, but you first said "interacting", not "intersecting." I invite you to explain the difference.... in 3-D. (Beware, I've studied all non-Euclidean cosmologies and will destroy your arguments for them, if you are in the realm to argue beyond your usual bullshit.) The "Bang" goes out omnidirectionally... just like fireworks. It is an expanding sphere of cosmic material. Then it comes back to its locus of origin... no necessarily all at once... out or in... if you get my drift.


How stupid is this... or were you on hard drugs?...

The "actual infinite" is oxymoron. You cannot reach the infinite by the same way, like the intersection of parallel lines - or we should redefine the existence concept.

What "same way?" How would you "redefine the existence concept?"
How would you re-write the above to actually make sense? Or would that be asking too much/
Enough.
Good night. Good grief! Good luck getting your head clear.
m

mikiel wrote:

Tomas wrote:.


The Big Crunch will happen after an infinite time

The actual infinite exists (Cantor), not only the potential. Which means it will be reached, the Big Crunch.

The "actual infinite" is oxymoron. You cannot reach the infinite by the same way, like the intersection of parallel lines - or we should redefine the existence concept.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbth ... mber=27178


.

My offering here, late night, is a highlight on this statement:
"The Big Crunch will happen after an infinite time"

I ask the forum, does "after an infinite time" make any sense to you... anyone?
Of course "infinite time" is an obvious oxymoron, proposed by a moron. It's called eternity by those who know. Oxymoron: A statement with internal contradiction. It contradicts itself... what is infinite has no "after" which denotes a finite boundary... Just such a stupid thing to say!

No one knows how long (in Earth years!!) a full cosmic bang/crunch cycle takes, but the Crunch will happen, as Tomas promised, in due time (the perpetual NOW), after the expansion reverses and "it all' comes back 'home' and goes "bang" again.

"like the interaction of parallell lines"....

Ummm... they don't "interact." Please go into depth on your understanding of non-Euclidean geometry. Sometimes I enjoy a cat-'n-mouse game. And 'intersecting parallel lines"' is another oxymoron... a defining moment of stupidity for anyone who proposes it.

Oh, but you first said "interacting", not "intersecting." I invite you to explain the difference.... in 3-D. (Beware, I've studied all non-Euclidean cosmologies and will destroy your arguments for them, if you are in the realm to argue beyond your usual bullshit.) The "Bang" goes out omnidirectionally... just like fireworks. It is an expanding sphere of cosmic material. Then it comes back to its locus of origin... no necessarily all at once... out or in... if you get my drift.


How stupid is this... or were you on hard drugs?...

The "actual infinite" is oxymoron. You cannot reach the infinite by the same way, like the intersection of parallel lines - or we should redefine the existence concept.

What "same way?" How would you "redefine the existence concept?"
How would you re-write the above to actually make sense? Or would that be asking too much/
Enough.
Good night. Good grief! Good luck getting your head clear.
m

If you had noticed, it as a snippet of a response. See URL link to Scienceagogo.

.

Tomas:

If you had noticed, it as a snippet of a response. See URL link to Scienceagogo

I don't always click on links offered. One can only assume that if the sentences are not in qoutes that they are your words. It's a useful convention.

mikiel, tomas has his own conventions. The mods have long since given up trying to change him. If you plan on not ignoring him, get used to his creative ways of avoiding using quotation marks and quote tags.

mikiel wrote:Tomas:

If you had noticed, it as a snippet of a response. See URL link to Scienceagogo

I don't always click on links offered. One can only assume that if the sentences are not in qoutes that they are your words. It's a useful convention.

The main article (and very good), is at that URL.

I'm just trying to keep this thread going with an article, you've interesting comments about cosmology - but I've very limited knowledge of "what it is all about".

I'm back in North Dakota for a couple weeks and watched the Northern Lights in all their splendor, last night.


Having misplaced 5-6 laptops over the years, I stick with WEB-TV (MSNTV), yeah it's an old way of doing things but works best for a guy (literally) blind in one eye an old, Army wound from VietNam ... need a larger screen for the wide-angle view. Life is hard :-(


.

mikiel wrote:I see, in the "Beyond God and Evil" thread where DQ said:

Nature being uncaused means that it doesn't have a first cause. Cause and effect extends back indefinitely.

Even if Nature was somehow locked into a repeating loop, it would still be a case of cause and effect extending back indefinitely.

So, David, how is it that it's ligitimate to study "Nature" but the study of cosmos, as a whole is "consciousness's illusions?"

The perpetual cycle of expansion and contraction (bang/crunch) I have seen and studied in depth *is* Nature in a repeating loop.

I agree that there is no "first cause".... (Where did it all come from?... out of nothing?... there is no beginning or end of "time." Now is perpetual, not segmented into "time units.")

Anyway if I changed all references to "cosmos" into "nature", would that redeam the this thread from the judgement that science is all illusory consciousness in your mind?

No.

There is a world of difference between uncovering what is logically true about Nature for the purpose of eliminating all of one's deluded thinking and that of speculating scientifically about details that are observed in Nature. The latter might be interesting in its own right and might have practical benefit, but it doesn't help one to transcend all delusion and become aware of the true face of Nature.

The perpetual cycle of expansion and contraction (bang/crunch) I have seen and studied in depth *is* Nature in a repeating loop.

That loop may well exist or it may not, but it shouldn't really matter to a transcendent being either way. Such theorizing belongs in the realm of tentative speculation about what happens to appear to us.

If strong evidence arose that undermined the possibility of such a loop existing, would you feel threatened by this? Would your spiritual views suddenly be revealed as false? How transcendent are your views really?

-

David Quinn wrote:

mikiel wrote:I see, in the "Beyond God and Evil" thread where DQ said:

Nature being uncaused means that it doesn't have a first cause. Cause and effect extends back indefinitely.

Even if Nature was somehow locked into a repeating loop, it would still be a case of cause and effect extending back indefinitely.

So, David, how is it that it's ligitimate to study "Nature" but the study of cosmos, as a whole is "consciousness's illusions?"

The perpetual cycle of expansion and contraction (bang/crunch) I have seen and studied in depth *is* Nature in a repeating loop.

I agree that there is no "first cause".... (Where did it all come from?... out of nothing?... there is no beginning or end of "time." Now is perpetual, not segmented into "time units.")

Anyway if I changed all references to "cosmos" into "nature", would that redeam the this thread from the judgement that science is all illusory consciousness in your mind?

No.

There is a world of difference between uncovering what is logically true about Nature for the purpose of eliminating all of one's deluded thinking and that of speculating scientifically about details that are observed in Nature. The latter might be interesting in its own right and might have practical benefit, but it doesn't help one to transcend all delusion and become aware of the true face of Nature.

Please explain how you see this world of difference between the study of cosmos and the study of nature. You spin it your own way, ignoring empirical evidence (the primary tool of science) and emphasizing "what is logically true about nature" (which = cosmos in my lexicon.) You lump all all scientific investigation into a phrase dissing science in general... " speculating scientifically about details that are observed in Nature." Do you call it speculating when science observes that light travesl at a given speed and requires 8+ min. to reach Earth from Sun? At what point does science become "speculation" in your opinion? (And I realize most cosmological visions/models are still "speculation.")

What does "help one to transcend all delusion and become aware of the true face of Nature" (including ones personal conditioning) is the absolute clarity of the unbiased mind in total transcendence of all personal programing. Are you familiar with this realm?

The perpetual cycle of expansion and contraction (bang/crunch) I have seen and studied in depth *is* Nature in a repeating loop.

That loop may well exist or it may not, but it shouldn't really matter to a transcendent being either way. Such theorizing belongs in the realm of tentative speculation about what happens to appear to us.
What "matters" to one individual matters not to another. I have always been interested in the overall reality of cosmos and the possibility that it is the largest scale intelligent Being, like us... only more... the Whole of which we are parts (as manifest individual entities.) What you say "shouldn't really matter" merely disses my lifelong passion for cosmology. Can you see how this is only your personal misguided judgement projected onto me... as to what an enlightened one should be interested in?

If strong evidence arose that undermined the possibility of such a loop existing, would you feel threatened by this? Would your spiritual views suddenly be revealed as false? How transcendent are your views really?

-

I welcome all "strong evidence" in the realm of cosmology. I am absolutely objective in the search for the truth of this universe... how it looks... how it acts... where it came from ... and what its destiny is.
I think the strongest evidence at this point supports my vision. Imaginary universes and models without any empirical evidence in support do not interest me at all. Yet they are the most popular cosmologies at this time... a tribute to the power of computer simulation and math without observational (empirical) evidence in support.

My "views" (try your best to grok what an actual cosmic Vision might be) are a life-long God-given revelations into what His/Her cosmic body looks like and how it's dynamics actually works.

If it turns out to be false... I am a false visionary and the devil has misled me all my life, ever since I asked Dad at age five... "How big is God?"
I think you must know this story by now.
Then I will gladly find a peaceful way to admit my lifelong delusion and kill myself... in a very appropriate way for an old hippie.

See you soon. I'm back in town at Sybil's place for the weekend.

Tomas wrote:

mikiel wrote:Tomas:

If you had noticed, it as a snippet of a response. See URL link to Scienceagogo

I don't always click on links offered. One can only assume that if the sentences are not in qoutes that they are your words. It's a useful convention.

The main article (and very good), is at that URL.

How, in your opinion was it "very good?" I've already given my take on how stupid it was... thinking it was in your words, which fit your profile as not too smart... (No quotes, no click... what else would one think?)

I'm just trying to keep this thread going with an article, you've interesting comments about cosmology - but I've very limited knowledge of "what it is all about".
Obviously. I, on the other hand (grok real honesty) have spent my whole adult life in passionate pursuit of scientific evidence in support (or not!) of my God-given Visions of Kosmos.

yeah it's an old way of doing things but works best for a guy (literally) blind in one eye an old, Army wound from VietNam ... need a larger screen for the wide-angle view. Life is hard :-(

I'm not interested in your programed "victimization" consciousness.
I'm here about enlightenment, with firsthand testimony and dialogue in the present in absolute Truth. Can you get over your "poor me" shit and speak honestly with me as above?
I think not. Suprise me.

Yeah! I've got a few "war stories" too and the old body ain't what it used to be. Maybe i should fish for sympathy too.

Nature being uncaused means that it doesn't have a first cause. Cause and effect extends back indefinitely.

This is not coherent.

Mikiel,

You really should look up Paul La Violette. He's amazing. I'm reading his "Genesis of the cosmos" right now.

.



-tomas-
The main article (and very good), is at that URL.

-mikiel-
How, in your opinion was it "very good?" I've already given my take on how stupid it was... thinking it was in your words, which fit your profile as not too smart... (No quotes, no click... what else would one think?)

-tomas-
Agreed! I'm not "too smart" (more likely quite dense) when it comes to the theory of kosmology as you are franking it on this forum.

-tomas-
I'm just trying to keep this thread going with an article, you've interesting comments about cosmology - but I've very limited knowledge of "what it is all about".

-mikiel-
Obviously. I, on the other hand (grok real honesty) have spent my whole adult life in passionate pursuit of scientific evidence in support (or not!) of my God-given Visions of Kosmos.

-tomas replies-
What is the difference between honesty and real honesty?

Secondy, please explain in a paragraph or two (of whatever length yours are) this Visions of Kosmos thing is about.

-tomas-

yeah it's an old way of doing things but works best for a guy (literally) blind in one eye an old, Army wound from VietNam ... need a larger screen for the wide-angle view. Life is hard :-(

-mikiel
I'm not interested in your programed "victimization" consciousness.

-tomas-
During your (heavy drinking) days, did you see those Visions of Kosmos stuff? Or just when you were sobered-up?

You speak of being an "old hippie" from some lifetime or two ago - most "hippies" I've encountered wouldn't say that alcohol-induced visions were part of the MO.

-mikiel-
I'm here about enlightenment, with firsthand testimony and dialogue in the present in absolute Truth.

-tomas-
No, first you show up, here at Genius, cussing (swearing whatever) and employing this "Rude Boy" persona, so I had tried to read-between-the-lines to see what you are getting at. But the name-calling attacks (rude boy tactics) cause one to lump you in the the Aspies (aspergers)sp? But then, you start a thread that you had a vision (somewhere) in this physical realm, some mountain wherever that you've decided to give that persona up. But sure to form, it started creeping back into usage. (I think I said I'll 'give you a week', and you'll be back with the same, tired cussing, well, it was about 3 weeks). It just makes for poor absorption for the people here when trying to decipher what exactly you are attempting to convey... Either lose the Rude Boy stuff or admit you feel better using that. The occasional cuss to make a point is A-OK though. Why kick up the dust, it just clouds what the messenger trying to say.

The latest, this promethius(sp?) dude, claiming an IQ of 180. He claims everybody here as beneath his intellectual capacity, so just 'waves his hand' and says, "this forum is a joke" and employs name-calling as his alibi why he can't get serious.

Other than the drive-by people here (people that are here for a week or so) that called you a liar, where have I?

-mikiel-
Can you get over your "poor me" shit and speak honestly with me as above?
I think not. Suprise me.

-tomas-
But easy for you to wave your hand and dismiss your hard-drinking past (now "moderate", you say), your wife (and kids) leaving you etc (you poor baby) We all have sinned (a shadowy past), some of which we wouldn't dare admit on internet wherever.

14,000 hours of meditation? Do you keep a stopwatch or how do you come up with such a precise number.

It's this Pentagon-funded "institute" that you are sworn-to-secrecy about, that one time it's 170, then it grows to 174, finally a while back its grown to 178. Which one is your definition of radical honesty -or- absolute honesty?

-mikiel-
Yeah! I've got a few "war stories" too and the old body ain't what it used to be.

-tomas-
But it is OK for you to not know how to get around the 3-quote bracket thingy here?

-mikiel-
Maybe I should fish for sympathy too.

-tomas-
Yeah yeah, you are at Sybil's, right. Whatever that is about.

You hang here for a week or so, then announce you have somewhere to go for awhile (don't we all?), then make your glorious return in the clouds, ie.-read the responses when you return and "alas?" discover, that you have become a topic of discussion.

You haven't shed the 'old Adam' (rude boy bullshit) in you, have you? Hence, my equal-opportunity mock replies that I even go after the Admins. If you are gonna shed the Old Adam, do it, anybody can say it.

About the only thread here, I don't read is Jehu's thread. That one has been going in circles for too long. Dave Toast, a long-timer here, stated that a bit ago.



PS - This is not one of my stock-in-trade mock replies.





.

Iolaus:

Mikiel,

You really should look up Paul La Violette. He's amazing. I'm reading his "Genesis of the cosmos" right now

Thanks. I'll check him out... eventually. How 'bout a summary of the highlights?

Tomas,
See my reply to Carl in the "Judging others" thread.

What is the difference between honesty and real honesty?

Secondy, please explain in a paragraph or two (of whatever length yours are) this Visions of Kosmos thing is about.

Real/radical honesty is truth telling at all cost, even hurting another's feelings. No lying... even "little white ones."

Review my cosmology related posts in this thread, if you are really interested.
Since I was 5, and many dozens of times since, I have gone into trance (it differs from daydreaming and imagining in my experience) and "seen" the whole cosmos as One Intelligent Being ("Kosmos"), "breathing" out ("bang") and in ("crunch.") Likewise, as a lay scientist I have studied models of cosmology all my adult life, and have found plausable scientific theory which can explain my visions as a mystic.

During your (heavy drinking) days, did you see those Visions of Kosmos stuff? Or just when you were sobered-up?

You speak of being an "old hippie" from some lifetime or two ago - most "hippies" I've encountered wouldn't say that alcohol-induced visions were part of the MO

I never said I was a heavy drinker. I used to get drunk once in a blue moon or so, but don't anymore. All my visions happen in trance with no drugs or alcohol at all.

No, first you show up, here at Genius, cussing (swearing whatever) and employing this "Rude Boy" persona, so I had tried to read-between-the-lines to see what you are getting at. But the name-calling attacks (rude boy tactics) cause one to lump you in the the Aspies (aspergers)sp?

The "rude boy" thing came from a Ken Wilber quote which I've shared here a few times. It's about enlightened ones holding ego to the Fire as a way of getting folks "over themselves" as egocentrics.
I found that it was counterproductive here to the extent that I was offending almost everyone to the point that they would dismiss what I was saying. The rude boy teacher persona works best in a milieu of students who already have respect for a teacher.

I have no moral prudish-ness about "cussing." Comes naturally to me as a "big tough biker."

But then, you start a thread that you had a vision (somewhere) in this physical realm, some mountain wherever that you've decided to give that persona up. But sure to form, it started creeping back into usage.

?? My vision clarifying the Great Pyramid chronograph (and prophecy) was after a seven day vision quest atop Mt. Shasta.
I also get visions on the hilltop above my Center for Conscious Unity in Pleasant Hill. The latter was where I was "prompted" to cool the rude boy persona for reason stated above. But I still don't "talk nice" and polite to assure that I don't ever offend anyone. It was and is an intentional toning down of the nasty insults.

See the above reply to Carl on the IQ question.

But easy for you to wave your hand and dismiss your hard-drinking past (now "moderate", you say), your wife (and kids) leaving you etc (you poor baby) We all have sinned (a shadowy past), some of which we wouldn't dare admit on internet wherever

Huh? I was divorced in '94 (after 25 yrs of marriage) while I was off in Hawaii. Didn't even care about or make to the hearing, and she took everything. (Re-married in '00.)
My three sons and I are and always have been very close. Likewise my 5 grandkids.

14,000 hours of meditation? Do you keep a stopwatch or how do you come up with such a precise number.

39 years meditating an hour a day plus a couple months at 8-10 hrs a day... Do the math.

Yeah yeah, you are at Sybil's, right. Whatever that is about.

Sybil is my wife. She lives in Eugene, and I visit, usually on weekends and use my laptop with her wireless. Do you have a problem with that?
You keep harping on the "rude boy" thing.
Yes, I will always be *radically honest* and that may occassionally hurt folks "feelings." As explained above.
Computer skills are not my forte'. BFD
Nuff already.

mikiel wrote:

See my reply to Carl in the "Judging others" thread.

See the above reply to Carl on the IQ question.

Search for my reply to this in the "Poop" thread.

.


mikiel writes:
Great Pyramid...

Hey! I knew you were good for something :-)

A fellow from my hometown of Minot, North Dakota is one of the premier Egyptologists.

Mark Lehner is his name. He was in Minot for his 40th high school reunion, this year. Read it on the Net.

http://www.minotdailynews.com


Also, became interested in Great Pyramid (the plateau) when my neighbor had a satellite dish.
Dr. Gene Scott would go on about it.

Not a lot of whoopee - just straight talk.

If you have "visions" to pass on about Great Pyramid - start a thread and watch it percolate with philosophical thoughts :-)





.

Regarding Dan and David's let-it-fall-through-the-cracks style of 'dialogue' here... when they are clearly without a cogent argument:
Bumping just a part of my reply to David a week ago...

m: What does "help one to transcend all delusion and become aware of the true face of Nature" (including ones personal conditioning) is the absolute clarity of the unbiased mind in total transcendence of all personal programing. Are you familiar with this realm?

The perpetual cycle of expansion and contraction (bang/crunch) I have seen and studied in depth *is* Nature in a repeating loop.


D: That loop may well exist or it may not, but it shouldn't really matter to a transcendent being either way. Such theorizing belongs in the realm of tentative speculation about what happens to appear to us.
m: What "matters" to one individual matters not to another. I have always been interested in the overall reality of cosmos and the possibility that it is the largest scale intelligent Being, like us... only more... the Whole of which we are parts (as manifest individual entities.) What you say "shouldn't really matter" merely disses my lifelong passion for cosmology. Can you see how this is only your personal misguided judgement projected onto me... as to what an enlightened one should be interested in?

Hi David. Did you slink off and hide your head in the sand on this one in hope that it will go away amid the clamor?
Then there was the rest of the post... but... don't go to any trouble to look foolish here. Sometimes silence is the best strategy for saving face... if that's all you are about.

Carl G wrote:mikiel wrote:

See my reply to Carl in the "Judging others" thread.

See the above reply to Carl on the IQ question.

Search for my reply to this in the "Poop" thread.

That really hurts, Carl. You don't like me. Please like me. I'm here to be liked, and very disappointed that you don't. What kind of ass kissing would it take to gain your favor?

I'll be keeping an eye out for your "Poop" thread. I'm just taking a wild guess here, but i think I am on your shit list and this thread will be full of personal insults aimed at me.

You are such a pouter. Grow up and get over it!