co&am, I should be embarassed that you managed to pull me back into this conversation. You must really like talking to me, otherwise you wouldn't have said so many lies (very few philosophers can resist correcting lies).
if something disgusts you to the point of distraction, then for you it is not a triviality.
The act is disgusting and distracting, not thinking about it. You can't do something else while having sex, and you transfer bodily fluids. That's all it means. Two people could be having sex in my room right in front of me and I'd be neither distracted nor disgusted. I simply wouldn't join in. I have better things to do.
and i thought you were explaining why i am a liar, not how mean it is that i wouldnt 'believe your answer'.
You were a liar. You asked an insincere question. Don't ask a question unless you're willing to let the answer be different than your expectations. The question was a lie.
didnt attack your grammar, i commented on an observation i made, on the way you say something is true, and then upon it's being refuted, you say, 'it is true except for this and this', when 'this and this' is often the reason your 'truth' is being refuted.
That's an accident of grammar. It does not change the truth of my statement. If I were to write a second draft, it wouldn't appear at all, because I'd have found a clearer way to express the same thing. You're a jackass, through and through. You still haven't responded to the philosophic point I made. Just the grammar. You are being evasive, not clever.
your interpretation of hakuin's statement is really dumb, man.
It's better than yours. Yours justifies any behaviour claiming it "Zennish", and makes you feel superior doing it (since it's "superior Zen"), when really you are just packing trivialities onto your life and thinking yourself grand doing so.
and you are really stretching the definition of that word 'lie' huh
No. A lie is when you deliberately say something untrue. You still do it. And you do it constantly.
it has nothing to do with superiority, or justifying behaviour, it is simply that zen practice will be as strong as the environs it is developed in.
False. It says "Zen practised here is superior" not "Zen practised here is stronger". Zen is Zen, no matter where it is practised. In the midst of activity, outside of activity... Zen is Zen. It's superior in the midst of activity only so far as it's more difficult to find calmness, not because it's somehow more Zennish. "Stronger Zen" is an oxymoron.
You can't see what he's saying because your interpretation stokes your ego, and makes marriage look like a good thing.
oh stop. you are rolling around in your own faeces.
you dont need to marry a woman to fuck her buddy.
people get married for a billion reasons... and here you are, calling me a liar, telling me you know my motivations for getting married better than i do.
I know you don't need to marry to fuck someone, but noone would get married if sex was not appealing. Don't lie. Why aren't you cohabitating with a man? and furthermore, do you have sex with your wife?
Anyway, I would sooner say you're spraying your shit everywhere than I'm rolling in my own faeces. If it looks like I'm covered in faeces, it's your own doing. You need some medicine to keep your shit in your body and under control.
you are going to let a juvenile moronic idea drag you through a life with no sex or intimacy in it, it is some seriously sad shit.
Sex and intimacy is raw ego attachment. She makes you feel good, doesn't she?
You're trying to feel pity for me because I don't give a damn about sex and will never waste my time getting married. I've chosen to be celibate. Just as I've chosen to abstain from drugs of all kinds. There's nothing sad or pitiable about these decisions.
it was, so crap and dumb man.
I think
you are the one incapable of coming up with intelligent replies.
me: I know this post is a bit aggressive, but I don't appreciate being told things about myself that I know aren't true.
you: if you know they aren't true, then why would they annoy you? you would think, well, that bloke just said that, but i know it isnt true, so i'm not bothered by what he says.
the truth is, you are getting aggressive in defending your crappy belief structures.
You're the second person I've talked to recently who looked at one of my polite bows and attacked it as though it really is my opinion. Maybe I should stop being polite... it's a habit that I picked up. I don't really care that I was being aggressive, since it has no bearing on the truth of what I say. You're a liar through and through, and this last post of yours just shows me how short-sighted I am responding to you. You have no interest in anything but maintaining your ego, so no matter what I say you will cover it with diarrhea and think it refuted.
Or am I giving you too much credit? Maybe you don't have enough knowledge of truth to be a liar.
where does this bitchy emotional shit belong in philosophical discussion?
"it seemed a bit mean"... play the man, fuck...
God, you are a fucking idiot. You can't take a moment's gracefulness without turning it into a goddamn attack. If it clearly doesn't belong, go with your instincts and don't respond to it. You can safely assume that it's neither a philosophic point, nor meant to be. It could be, for instance, a bow.
(For the record, I don't think "mean" means what you think it meant. I meant that you said a low-brow, crude attack... not that you hurt my feelings. Get over yourself: it, along with everything else you have said so far, was very mediocre. At this point in my life, I don't think someone like you is even capable of scratching me.)
ok this is you grinding out spaghetti justifications for your previous conversational fumblings.
If you understood what I said, maybe I'd consider what you said. I mean, I did say something a little
post hoc, and did need to pull out a few uncomfortable words doing so.
But, then again, my point WAS perfectly true. If you look at the technicalities of what I said, I didn't contradict myself. A person must be able to know that he knows truth to know the truth, therefore "knowing that he knows the truth" is not a separate condition of wisdom even though it may appear to be. Since I didn't contradict myself, you were wrong.
Anyways, I must add that it isn't surprising that I didn't contradict myself. I avoid contradictions without thinking about it.
