GENIUS FORUMS

sschaula wrote:Some moron wrote,

It's interesting how one can react emotionally to the very sight of a word, as if it has some sort of permanent stigma around it.

I've been at this forum for a long time. I didn't complain before. If it were an emotional reaction to a word, I would've said something sooner.

The fact is that I thought my way to despising those words, when used at this forum.

Think what you want. I'm sick of having to defend my points just because others can't quite grasp them.

The one you refer to as a moron, (Ryan), if you care to look closely his fine post is speaking mostly in your favor, too. You simply assume it to be a personal attack addressed especially to your-good-intelligent-self since it addresses David’s quote. Yours is a blind jump to conclusions without giving it much thought.

Try to grasp something yourself before you speak. Others can get sick of it too, you know.

I'm sick of having to defend my points just because others can't quite grasp them.

Scott,

Just that you may not get any sicker and splatter your undigested stomach contents all over the forum, :) let me tell you what I comprehend or grasp of what you are trying to convey.

You said…

Quote me on this: perfect enlightenment is a complete and permanent absence of delusion.

Enlightenment is a good idea. (since it stimulates thinking I take it)

But, as long as one is in a thinking state, the state of ‘ideas’ that is, as in thinking “I am wise”, “I am enlightened”, or whatever the “idea” really is, and exists of course, one is in a state of delusion for that is what thinking really is, and it is impossible to actually be in any other state, so it is impossible to achieve “perfect” enlightenment as defined.

I think that’s what you are saying in a nutshell.

Now what you have to simply prove logically is that there really is an alternative state of existence in contrast to a “thinking” state. If any other state than “thinking” is not possible, then we necessarily have nothing to rely on other than that to make logical sense of anything at all, so whatever conclusions one reaches on his own, cannot be really verified by another, since ‘the other’ would also be an idea. So one has to be absolutely sure that “I” exist. Further, what you may be saying is that there is no way to verify one owns thinking itself, so the idea that "I exist" is also merely an idea, so work on "I exist" first. If you cannot, I really cannot help you there.

However, I might not be able to respond any time soon. I don’t have the strength. You know that I am actually sick, and in any case, others are much better than me in communicating.

Addition: To make myself clear, one has to first be certain that thinking exists, and then think if that can be relied upon to achieve any degree of certainty. If thinking is delusion, then one has no case at all.

The one you refer to as a moron, (Ryan), if you care to look closely his fine post is speaking mostly in your favor, too.

No he wasn't.

Enlightenment is a good idea. (since it stimulates thinking I take it)

But, as long as one is in a thinking state, the state of ‘ideas’ that is, as in thinking “I am wise”, “I am enlightened”, or whatever the “idea” really is, and exists of course, one is in a state of delusion for that is what thinking really is, and it is impossible to actually be in any other state, so it is impossible to achieve “perfect” enlightenment as defined.

I think that’s what you are saying in a nutshell.

No.

Now what you have to simply prove logically

I don't have to prove anything.

is that there really is an alternative state of existence in contrast to a “thinking” state. If any other state than “thinking” is not possible, then we necessarily have nothing to rely on other than that to make logical sense of anything at all, so whatever conclusions one reaches on his own, cannot be really verified by another, since ‘the other’ would also be an idea. So one has to be absolutely sure that “I” exist. Further, what you may be saying is that there is no way to verify one owns thinking itself, so the idea that "I exist" is also merely an idea, so work on "I exist" first. If you cannot, I really cannot help you there.

However, I might not be able to respond any time soon. I don’t have the strength. You know that I am actually sick, and in any case, others are much better than me in communicating.

Addition: To make myself clear, one has to first be certain that thinking exists, and then think if that can be relied upon to achieve any degree of certainty. If thinking is delusion, then one has no case at all.

I never said thinking is delusion.

Scott,

I never said thinking is delusion.

No, not in those exact words.

Suit yourself my friend :)

---

Why is the forum so damned slow when I have all the time to sit and read while sneezing?
Where is everybody? It is not a weekend already, is it? :D

I never said it in any kind of words.

sschaula wrote:I never said it in any kind of words.

OK.

So can I offer you some belgian hot chocolate then? At least I need one. I enjoyed that 'foolishness on hold' stuff, though. Thanks :)

Yes, Belgian hot chocolate sounds good.