What constitutes being a philosopher?

@Cyracuz,

Wrong. We are experiencing everything through the actual forces of nature. Our anger is likened to the volcano. Our emotions are likened to the tides. Our feelings are likened to electromagnetic waves. Our ego is likened to gravity. Our inner peace is likened to the eye of a tornado. When you understand why ancient teachers spoke of a "third eye", you'll realize that they are onto something big, but it's not "spiritual", it's "abstract science". The male's genitalia is likened to the star's implosion. The black hole is likened to the female's genitalia via absorption. There is nothing that is "human" - everything "human" is simply people fooling themselves into believing our experience contains forces that are exempted from the rest of the Universe. Name one force of nature in the human experience that is not already existing outside of the human brain, Cyra.

Please look at my three threads: "We're the algorithm", "The eternal eye" and "Red + Blue = Purple".

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

You are seduced by the words. There's no likeness between volcanoes and anger beyond the crude analogy to describe angry behavior. These comparisons and metaphors are just more poetry. I can appreciate that, but it is no explanation of anything.

Quote:

Name one force of nature in the human experience that is not already existing outside of the human brain, Cyra

Human arrogance. It's a very destructive force of nature.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

One Eyed Mind wrote:

Are you aware that everything in the Universe is existing in a different form on a smaller scale via the human experience (i.e Females are black holes; externally gives life ~ internally takes in life. Males are stars; externally takes in life ~ internally gives life).

Buckminster Fuller does a better job at what you're trying to do, and couches it in all encompassing tensegrity.

There are also a lot of things that exist with the same form on a different scale. Those are fractals. Not metaphors.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyra, we came from the Universe.

Volcanos came from the Universe.

Everything we live in, came from the Universe.

Emotions came from the Universe.

Our body contains everything that came from the Universe.

The photo receptors in our eyes? They were emerging from space billions of years ago before stars existed.

Do you dare deny that we are created in the image of the Universe?

0 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

Refer to above - not my post; the Universe.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

One Eyed Mind wrote:

Refer to above - not my post; the Universe.

What? More poetry?

Like I said, there are people, more intelligent people might I add, that are doing what you're trying to do. Sorry. Doesn't cut it.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

My knowledge is above Buddha's knowledge, Ding.

Buddha says life is of "dualism".

If Buddha was correct, we would live our life via: Animal > Man > Animal > Man > Animal > Man.

Instead, we are living: Animal > Man > Mind > Universe.

Light is the evolution of darkness.

Intelligence is the evolution of ignorance.

Love is the evolution of anger.

I have challenged a principle of a wise man that is followed by billions of people today.

I have challenged consciousness.

I have challenged Riemann's Hypothesis.

I have challenged society's conformity.

I have challenged the holy book.

I have challenged everything on such a profound level, that the people for it, have agreed with my assessments - that goes to show how powerful my ideas are, and why you're spending all your time condescending me and deconstructing my ideas, for you have none of your own. I am giving you answers - you're just giving me questions I already answered; it's you who hasn't understood your own questions.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

One Eyed Mind wrote:

My knowledge is above Buddha's knowledge, Ding.

Buddha says life is of "dualism".

If Buddha was correct, we would live our life via: Animal > Man > Animal > Man > Animal > Man.

Instead, we are living: Animal > Man > Mind > Universe.

Light is the evolution of darkness.

Intelligence is the evolution of ignorance.

Love is the evolution of anger.

I have challenged a principle of a wise man that is followed by billions of people today.

I have challenged consciousness.

I have challenged Riemann's Hypothesis.

I have challenged society's conformity.

I have challenged the holy book.

I have challenged everything on such a profound level, that the people for it, have agreed with my assessments - that goes to show how powerful my ideas are, and why you're spending all your time condescending me and deconstructing my ideas, for you have none of your own. I am giving you answers - you're just giving me questions I already answered; it's you who hasn't understood your own questions.

No, you are giving me assertions without any justification. When did you issue these challenges? Are they written in any academic journals? Any blogs? And with whom?

You can't just state that you've done all of these seemingly grandiose things without actually justifying or explaining them. Doesn't pass for people with bullshit detectors. Sorry.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

I am not here to entertain you; I am here to entertain ideas.

I've given you the puzzle pieces, but your brain can't encrypt them.

If I asked you "do you know what I am talking about" when regarding my accomplishments, you wouldn't understand any of it.

Therefore, it remains uncontested by your "skepticism", which is merely you not knowing as much as I do in disguise.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

Go ahead, One Eyed Mind. Indulge yourself. That's why we are here.

3 Replies

@JLNobody,

As I told Chai earlier,

I care more about the idea than my image.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLN,

Generally, I would agree with your generous democratic stance but here we are clearly dealing with what current parlance calls a "troll" who has been banned on other forums. I sympathize with an individual with his social problems, but feeding him with the attention he craves (... it matters not to him whether that is positive or negative...) IMO is unlikely to solve his problems.

Those interested in non-standard cosmology (which is not merely a collection of facile ramblings) are recommended to sample the the Ouspensky reference, cited above, as a prime example. Gurdjieff's "system" and its offshoots such as "The School of Practical Philosophy", flourishes to this day on a global scale. With respect to this thread title "the real world", such systems of thought give thinkers a glimpse into the mechanisms of "reality construction", an exercise more generally attributable to mainstream religions.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

NB. I should have added that "worlds within worlds" and " the eye of higher consciousness" are ancient esoteric and religious concepts.

0 Replies

What constitutes being a philosopher?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know