GENIUS FORUMS

Thinking outside the boxes is that nothing has an essence of its "own" or any "ego", but that there is only the "one", through which all things act. "It", (me) is acting to survive, "I" have no "side" of my own, it has a "side" the only side, all apparent sides are manifestations of it's side.

Sorry, Bobo, Laird, Kunga, you sound like people who have had little exposure to the problems you all think are so easily solvable with your nice sounding ideas but which just will not always work in real life with real animals. As I said, I'm not a fan of those collars at all and neither does Dennis sound like one. But in these kind of situations you have to evaluate all the factors and go with what's best all things considered. And I can imagine sometimes a device like this can help. Letting the dog bark would also needlessly aggravate it and cause a soar throat at the very least. Of course you never thought about that because rather then helping the situation you try to find fault with someone. Typical feminine type of whining though, cruel and sharp, knives out for the kill...

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:The only difference is, that guy doesn't have a clue what "quantum fluctuation" is, outside of imagining some past "dream" he has associated. In fact, "quantum fluctuation" is just a collection of letters used to refer to a past sense experiences, past associations of sight, sound, or whatever image or conceptualization one has connected with those words.

Then again, you don't have a clue either what "sense experience" is. Because to know it you need to perceive it first and identify. The quantum scientist has the advantage he can communicate his collection of words in a way other people can work with. You disadvantage is that you cannot by going on about sense experience. It's a good example of a henid. It's a starting point, not the end.

Both dreams, both existing in the mind, as hallucinations rather than physical and permanent things.

Again, hallucination as term is only meaningful if there's a vision which is not hallucinatory. And when the hallucination consists of elements of this vision but do not qualify as "real". I don't think you can call something "hallucination" if there's no "true vision" of things. If all things are unreal, then the real is no thing. If all experiences are unreal, then the real is no experience or all experiences combined.

Again I feel we are labeling and distinguishing too much, distinguishing something that flows as one, from a common essence. All of sight/sound/hearing are simply different labels for our stream of consciousness, all aspects of which flow in complete unison, including thought.

Language is all about labeling while awareness is about distinguishing. The fact that it's actually some all compassing stream which flows in unison doesn't mean your language should become mushy to give expression to it. It can still be addressed precise and with great clarity if you set your mind to it. Or you can just not address it at all.

You don't have vivid enough memory of your dream experiences to say that, for all you know its exactly the same kind of existence, we are just distinguishing because at the moment we are in a "waking" state.

You don't know anything about my dream experiences but I suspect you haven't realized yet fully which makes something "real" or what makes something "false". It goes beyond mind and matter.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Of course you never thought about that because rather then helping the situation you try to find fault with someone. Typical feminine type of whining though, cruel and sharp, knives out for the kill...

As you whine about our whinning....and it's not whinning....it's speaking up for animal rights & animal cruelty, cause they are silenced when they try to speak.......

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Letting the dog bark would also needlessly aggravate it and cause a soar throat at the very least.

LOL...that's a better way at least. Why bother having a dog if you don't like dog behavior ? Move out to the country then. You can't have outdoor dogs in the city to disturb humans, that have no tolerance .

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Of course you never thought about that because rather then helping the situation you try to find fault with someone. Typical feminine type of whining though, cruel and sharp, knives out for the kill...

You try to avoid responsibility, that's feminine. If you don't know how/can't raise a dog don't have one. It is inconsistent.

Diebert, I find that you are trying to use language as literal. Like saying I have no clue what "sense experience" is, which is completely false, I have no clue about the specific definition of words, but when I say "sense experience" I know exactly what I am referring to, as does everyone else,

which is, seeing, hearing, etc, "This", right now, that thing that makes up your existence, sensing.

For example, "hallucination as term is only meaningful if there's a vision which is not hallucinatory", when that is just not true at all, was the Buddha not being meaningful when he called the waters that animals drink from nothing but "hallucinations of the mind", or was he saying something very clear and meaningful? Answer: He was saying something very clear and meaningful, and the meaning was, that the waters are like a mirage or hallucination existing only in the mind, like a dream. He was being vague and general, which in certain situations, while talking about the bigger picture, is the only way to be clear and simple.

If I had limited myself to saying "reality doesn't exist independent of sensual experience" that would have been clear to most people, but to many it would have just sounded like some philosophical theory that they wouldn't have quiet grasped the meaning of, it would not have been as clear and would not have demonstrated exactly what I meant, the meaning is much more clear and can only be properly explained with, your living a dream!, can't you see? wake up to it!".

"If all things are unreal, then the real is no thing."

Again your trying to base my meaning on the use of language with words like "real" and "unreal", which really mean nothing, all things experienced are real, although they are seated only in the sensory perception of the mind, like a dream.

Think "frequency" over and over until you realize the word means absolutely nothing to you, then get back to me when you start to notice that every single quantum physicist in the world has as much clue about the word "fluctuation", "wave" and "particle" as you do.

Get what it means that "No one knows anything about particulars", meaning anything related to particulars, such as "quantum fluctuations", you have absolutely no idea about, zero, zilch, naughta clue. All knowing of anything related to particulars is completely wrong, the only thing you can talk about without referring to reality wrongly is the bigger picture. When I say "sense experience", I mean everything, it might be clearer if I were to say "stream of consciousness" or even more precisely, "experience", which encompasses all, I will say, "experience", other than "sense experience" for you,

It is good for everyone to go back to the beginning sometimes, the beginning: pick an object like water, and stare at it until you get it through your head that you have absolutely no clue about that water besides that your seeing it. Or "sensing" it. There is not one other piece of information you could give me about water other than saying "water", which leads me to recall my direct experiences of "water". If you were to describe it to me without me having seen it before..... that wouldn't work out very well.

Every expert in the world has no clue about that water besides that they are seeing it, or besides some other associated images or illusory concepts in their mind.

I don't know if you know.... but the sages tried to say something.... people caught up in definitions are idiots.... because reality can't be defined by words.... only and strictly by referring to other people's direct experiences, like "dream", which is a very different kind of word to "fluctuation", can you see how very different the use of those two words are?

I agree I am being a bit too vague, if you stop using words like "fluctuation", and be more straight forward, then I will start being less vague and we will meet in the middle?


Understand that I'm the guy trying to stop people from just talking about it like :"oh yeah things don't exist Independence of sense experience" ..

And trying to get them to see, to wake up, to have huge epiphany so that their perspective changes dramatically, to start talking about it like: "Holy shit! Everything around me is a fucking illusion! When I close my eyes my body is literally existing only in the touch-consciousness, it has disappeared from existence in my sight-consciousness, literally disappeared, and that these forms of sensing make up existence, when there is no sensation/experience there is no consciousness, no body, and no "me" or "John", HOLY SHIT! I'm a formless awareness that can think without a fucking brain, HOLY SHIT! I'm only imagining there is an actual brain inside my skull! The sun and moon and world are a miraculous illusion that sprang into existence from seemingly nothing rather than a physical thing that formed over time! Holy shit!"

Getting me?

Most people never get passed, "oh yeah things exist in sense perception", most people can never actually see it.

Thinking outside the boxes is that nothing has an essence of its "own" or any "ego", but that there is only the "one", through which all things act. "It", (me) is acting to survive, "I" have no "side" of my own, it has a "side" the only side, all apparent sides are manifestations of it's side.

You are supplying an identity here which is inside box 1.

(insert your standard reply: 'language is provisional).

What identity am I assigning? Have I given it characteristics or described it in any way?

I am only saying it is all of the same essence, the wall, the dream, the laptop.

The only thing we can know about the unknown is what we experience, which says nothing about it, except for what it can manifest.

the "one", through which all things act

identity.
box 1.

There is one essence. This is correct, this is not assigning some false identity or misinterpreting.

Identity.
Box !.

"ignorant of the fact that there is but one common Essence" - Buddha Gautama

"Each separate being in the universe
returns to the common source.
Returning to the source is serenity."
- Lao Tzu

So both of them were trapped by an identity box :\ They were speaking clearly, it is you making up concepts in your mind such as *they've said something wrong here, they aren't thinking about it correctly, like I must be in order to point out that they aren't*

I think Dennis it is time for you to outline your philosophy, thus far I have only seen you hand out advice/ pointing out where erroneous thinking may be, not much of your own opinion on the subject. But the question is, are you subject to this erroneous thinking yourself or not?

nothing exists.

What a joke.... < does that word joke there not exist so far as we see it?

What is your definition of "exists" ?

Dennis Mahar wrote:the options were,
a. by some manner quieten the dog.

The answer is love and respect, not violence and suppression. Tomas's solution is more of the same. Work with your dog, not against him.

Diebert wrote:Letting the dog bark would also needlessly aggravate it and cause a soar throat at the very least. Of course you never thought about that because rather then helping the situation you try to find fault with someone. Typical feminine type of whining though, cruel and sharp, knives out for the kill...

Typical sophism - turning around the cruelty onto those who point it out instead of the source; defending cruelty and then charging those who take issue as cruel themselves. You have a gift for spin, Diebert.

None of us have argued that there's no problem with the dog barking for hours at a time. It probably points to distress. I take issue only with Dennis' callous response. If you take responsibility for the care of an animal then that's exactly what you need to do: care for it. Electric shocks are not care.

Laird,
in the circumstances,
in assessing the situation,
a possibility showed up,
that is, that in Australia, a practice is enacted where a poison bait is set for a troublesome dog.
One of the neighbours appears to have the capacity for that act.

The electronic necklace issues a mild shock when the dog barks between midnight and 6 am.
The rest of the time the dog is without the necklace.

In the set of options the necklace works.

I don't own the circumstances.
I deal with it.

Laird are you a vegetarian? Kunga? It's relevant

guest_of_logic wrote:

Diebert wrote:Letting the dog bark would also needlessly aggravate it and cause a soar throat at the very least. Of course you never thought about that because rather then helping the situation you try to find fault with someone. Typical feminine type of whining though, cruel and sharp, knives out for the kill...

Typical sophism - turning around the cruelty onto those who point it out instead of the source; defending cruelty and then charging those who take issue as cruel themselves. You have a gift for spin, Diebert.

No, I really think your ignorance and bullshitting on this topic is the only thing really cruel here. You are murdering something in the process. Your own common senses. Or at least you're torturing it. And your dismissal of it adds just further hurt to injury. This is not an intellectual game, Laird. I do really think your comments are the bigger evil of the issues here.

None of us have argued that there's no problem with the dog barking for hours at a time. It probably points to distress. I take issue only with Dennis' callous response. If you take responsibility for the care of an animal then that's exactly what you need to do: care for it. Electric shocks are not care.

Please, get yourself some experience in the world out there and see how much you can accomplish with problematic animals or people with "love and respect". The sad thing is that you won't last long. You will give up in two days and never speak of it again. Love and respect is not an "answer" to anything at all, you have it or you don't.

And it was a good question: are you vegetarian? Otherwise your love and respect for a pet seems rather awkward and self-serving. I think love and respect for animals should start with having the correct attitude toward the meat industry and then work your way down towards finding workable solutions for having the right amount of respect for the animals one happens to live with. After witnessing enough animal and pet abuse one gets to be happy it's just a temporary shock collar they are using. It shows actual care for a workable solution and there's not always a better alternative available to the owner in the world out there. Just count your blessings that you all your dogs always responded well to normal care but don't put that assumption out there as law.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Diebert, I find that you are trying to use language as literal. Like saying I have no clue what "sense experience" is, which is completely false, I have no clue about the specific definition of words, but when I say "sense experience" I know exactly what I am referring to, as does everyone else, which is, seeing, hearing, etc, "This", right now, that thing that makes up your existence, sensing.

Sorry for using language as literal but it has to mean something. You are just dancing around here with your meanings of "sense experience". Now it's seeing and hearing, earlier it included "every thought and concept", why not call it the now like your friend Tolle? You are saying it's "this", "that thing that makes up". You mean the cause of your awareness, the cause of you experiencing "now". But you don't know what this cause it, you only know you are experiencing probably because your memory enables you to, tricking into perceiving unity where it's actually a complex mess. Whatever it is you are trying to pin point, it's not really there. It's a composite, it's a reflexion, it's many things coming together and leaving impression of a moment or a thing.

A lot of people think they know exactly what they are referring to when saying "table" or "chair", it's right there, right now, that thing which makes up me experiencing table and chair. Are you sure you are not doing the same thing?

Buddha was saying something very clear and meaningful, and the meaning was, that the waters are like a mirage or hallucination existing only in the mind, like a dream. He was being vague and general, which in certain situations, while talking about the bigger picture, is the only way to be clear and simple.

This is not the problem, to say it's like a dream or that we always perceive things in the same way like we are dreaming. But with Buddha there's still a larger reality to wake up to, of which the dream is a distorted, fragmented view. My sense is that you are using the terms differently, that is you are aware of the illusions but are not reasoning enough why they are and where it stops.

If I had limited myself to saying "reality doesn't exist independent of sensual experience" that would have been clear to most people

It wouldn't because you are clearly talking about your perceptions being dependent of your perceiving and people would say "duh". You are not able to make the case that the whole of reality (the all) is completely depending on your or anyone's sensual experiences (always a part). Because it would mean sensual experiences of consciousness are the totality. With this logic can help to destroy the mistake: consciousness is defined by identifying a part in relation to the whole. It's defined by not knowing the whole otherwise it could not be consciousness. And since for complete dependence one has to regard them as equal terms, the whole of reality cannot be dependent or being equal to consciousness. Instead the rising and falling of consciousness remains an integrated part of everything.

Again your trying to base my meaning on the use of language with words like "real" and "unreal", which really mean nothing, all things experienced are real, although they are seated only in the sensory perception of the mind, like a dream.

I prefer language to have meaning and that meaning is always dualistic in nature. Like the Tao can be spoken of and not be told. It's always both and it happens the moment we say anything about the topic at all. So things are real and unreal, a dream and reality, illusion and truth. This is a paradox waiting to be solved.

Speaking of paradoxes....Buddha was not a vegetarian, yet he was proactive against violence. Animals were not to be killed for the purpose of feeding him specifically. If someone made a meal for their family and he made alms rounds that day, he would eat what was given to him. If someone invited him for dinner the meal most likely was vegetarian, as he would not eat meat slaughtered specifically for him.

I do not cook meat for myself. I have a family and cook meat for them as they are meat eaters and do not want to be vegetarians . Occasionally I will eat it though.....but less and less. I do not crave meat, nor require it to be satisfied.
I crave salads & healthy fresh fruit & vegetables (organic). I'd say my diet is 75% vegetarian, 20% raw (uncooked veggies % fruit, seeds & nuts), 5% meat .

"ignorant of the fact that there is but one common Essence" - Buddha Gautama

"Each separate being in the universe
returns to the common source.
Returning to the source is serenity."
- Lao Tzu

I realize Lao Tzu is not being literal when he uses the word 'separate'; having said that, these two quotes are pearls of wisdom.

Where the rubber hits the road is one's understanding of what it means to return to the source, the one essence. Hence this forum and thousands like it.

Diebert writes: There's something neurotic and debasing about transforming an animal in a domesticated pet, indoors and alone.

Yes, I've thought this before about human domestication as well, and its larger scale of collective neurosis. We'd have to say there is something "neurotic" about taming any thing, and since the whole aim seems to be the mutual benefits of socialization (animals, too), "neurosis" appears to be one of the outgases this taming produces. It's all well and good to stand on our hindquarters against this process applied to [by the way, already-long-domesticated] animals, but I've yet to meet any true human anarchist willing to make the trade off of their own social comforts for native wildness.

I'm ovo-lacto vegetarian, the occasional undeveloped nervous system of an egg; the fermented milk of goats/cows, and it has been this way for over 25 years. I have a few things made of leather, very old things I've had a long time. Sometimes I think I wouldn't mind being as arch as, say, a Peter Singer, who owns no pets, refuses all argument for testing on animals, eating of animals, refuses any and all commerce with animals at all, centering his whole bio-ethics in strict non-interference, co-habitive, parallel ig-norance. It's uplifting I guess to run into purists like this, but the case is mid-stream and puppies hobbled with their domesticated gene-messages, sitting in shelters, might prefer society with humans, too, advantageously speaking. We just have to do better than button-pushing solutions, stupid as we have become in our all-answering faith in them.

I wouldn't mind parading around with a shiny badge.
Where do ya' get 'em?

Dennis Mahar wrote:I wouldn't mind parading around with a shiny badge.
Where do ya' get 'em?

You got yours when you told us of your kind deed saving the puppies from extermination.

When a puppy is taken from the refuge a payment has to be made to have the pup speyed.

I'm just realising how fuckin' complicated it is to live.

The dog cost nothing.
The surgery cost 200.
The collar cost 200.

Now I'm told I'm barking mad!