guigus
 
  1  
Mon 18 Jul, 2011 05:24 pm
@Dasein,
Dasein wrote:

guigus wrote:
In practice, none of us can have a full-blown experience of being, including each and all being, just like none of us can have a full-blown experience of nothing, excluding each and all being. By which being and nothingness are, in practice, the same.
You have forgotten what you already know or you are outright lying about knowing it. Just because you haven't had a "full-blown experience of 'Be'-ing" doesn't mean that "none of us can have a full-blown experience of 'Be'-ing". More accurately said, "A full-blown experience of 'Be'-ing-there".

It is truly imbecilic of you to propose that you are the 'litmus test' for the rest of us on the planet. That statement you made let's the rest of us know not to put too much stock in what you have to say.

Thanks for the warning.


Please don't confuse the concept of "being" with Heidegger's concept of "being-there" (I suggest you read Being and Time for the 1.434.341.353 time so perhaps this time you see the difference): confusing two philosophical concepts just because they share a common word is truly imbecilic---and this time Heidegger is not to blame.
guigus
 
  1  
Mon 18 Jul, 2011 05:37 pm
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

I think he's getting ready to pull out a straw from his back pocket to spit that right back at you..................DUCK!!!


He has a complex of God---one capable of a full-blown experience of being and nothingness---which is why he was outraged by my remembering him he is just another guy.
0 Replies
 
Chights47
 
  1  
Tue 19 Jul, 2011 11:44 am
@guigus,
guigus wrote:
Thank you very much!

Well, I don't know if you realize what you have just agreed with, so let me call your attention to the fact that this has huge implications. The first question that arises from this is: how can be nothing be everything that exists? How can this be, without also destroying everything? And it is only when you seriously ask yourself that question that things begin to get really interesting.
Sorry for my late response, I'm not certain as to how nothing can be everything with destroying everything, unless you destroy the ontological concepts about everything. I'm not certain if that would count towards the destruction of everything since it's just the negation of the concepts around them. With this state of negation, however, everything can become anything.
guigus
 
  1  
Tue 19 Jul, 2011 06:01 pm
@Chights47,
Chights47 wrote:

guigus wrote:
Thank you very much!

Well, I don't know if you realize what you have just agreed with, so let me call your attention to the fact that this has huge implications. The first question that arises from this is: how can be nothing be everything that exists? How can this be, without also destroying everything? And it is only when you seriously ask yourself that question that things begin to get really interesting.
Sorry for my late response, I'm not certain as to how nothing can be everything with destroying everything, unless you destroy the ontological concepts about everything. I'm not certain if that would count towards the destruction of everything since it's just the negation of the concepts around them. With this state of negation, however, everything can become anything.


Once being and nothingness are the same, any and every single being is a non-being: that would be the "destruction" of everything, since not a single being would remain a being. So the question is: how can any and every single being cease to be and still be?

Additionally, there are no concepts "around" everything, since everything is... everything: there is nothing else. All there is around everything is... nothing.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Tue 19 Jul, 2011 06:36 pm
@guigus,
The Self, or more accurately said, 'Self' is an un-covering of itself. You know this and it is an issue for 'projecting' it 'there'.

There is no 'thing', not 'nothing'. The problem your having is that you go through life by merely 'maintaining' your 'self' through a serious of explanations instead of Be-ing your very 'self'. You look at 'nothing' as some sort of concept to be proven or disproven, when in fact it was just 'created' to cover over Be-ing as an explanation.

No one is ever going to be able to provide you with the definition you seek, as Dasein has said, you merely have forgotten what you already know and are trying to prove something to cover it up.
guigus
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jul, 2011 12:52 am
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

The Self, or more accurately said, 'Self' is an un-covering of itself. You know this and it is an issue for 'projecting' it 'there'.


This is not about "self": this is about being and nothingness, which are much more fundamental concepts. When you say that self "is an un-covering of itself," you are already using the concept of being (is): that's the concept---along with nothingness---that I am talking about.

JPLosman0711 wrote:
There is no 'thing', not 'nothing'.


The sentence "there is no thing" means that nothing exists, including the "self": I don't believe this is what you really think.

JPLosman0711 wrote:
The problem your having is that you go through life by merely 'maintaining' your 'self' through a serious of explanations instead of Be-ing your very 'self'.


The problem you are having is that you don't know how to reason properly (and again, Heidegger is not to blame).

JPLosman0711 wrote:
You look at 'nothing' as some sort of concept to be proven or disproven, when in fact it was just 'created' to cover over Be-ing as an explanation.


Your mistakes:

1) We don't look at a concept (unless metaphorically): at most, we can look at the word painted on paper, which represents that concept. This "look at" attitude reveals however your passive attitude toward things, which usually consists in just accepting whatever prejudices you received from whoever you learned from.
2) The concept of nothing needs not be "proven," but rather understood: it is you that are proving nothing, that is, not proving anything.
3) As concepts, being and nothingness are as natural or artificial ("created") as any other concept, including "self," so you'd better abandon language and go "uh, uh" (which in your case would be probably better).

JPLosman0711 wrote:
No one is ever going to be able to provide you with the definition you seek, as Dasein has said, you merely have forgotten what you already know and are trying to prove something to cover it up.


It is you that are expecting someone to "provide" you of what you seek (supposing you seek anything): I have already found my answers myself---I am the "do-it-yourself" kind of guy. That's what I "already know," and I am not intending to forget it. You, on the other hand, unfortunately have forgotten how to think---supposing you ever knew how to do it.

Why don't you read Heidegger's "The Essence of Truth," in which he makes a fairly good questions about nothing, including this: What is there something and not nothing?
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jul, 2011 01:16 am
@JPLosman0711,
Correcting: "Why is there something instead of nothing?" And it seems this question was uttered in another place than "On The Essence of Truth":

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/heidegger6a.htm

When I find Heidegger's text I was talking about I let you know. Anyway, please learn Heidegger before trying to teach his ideas.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jul, 2011 02:05 am
@guigus,
I do not believe that 'Heidegger'(some mans name) was actually asking a question when he says 'Why is there something rather than nothing'?

He is trying to get you to 'think' for your 'self'.

Also, you're 'listening' seems to be off in your posts. You are not authentically hearing what I have to say but are 'taking me' as some 'thing' to be 'understood'(prove or disprove the existence of). In case you didn't know(you do) everything you read is a reflection of you, Be-ing. This 'thing' you are trying to prove/disprove simply doesn't exist.
guigus
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jul, 2011 03:00 am
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

I do not believe that 'Heidegger'(some mans name) was actually asking a question when he says 'Why is there something rather than nothing'?

He is trying to get you to 'think' for your 'self'.


That's not much to say about a question, don't you think?

JPLosman0711 wrote:
Also, you're 'listening' seems to be off in your posts. You are not authentically hearing what I have to say but are 'taking me' as some 'thing' to be 'understood'(prove or disprove the existence of).


There is no point in proving the existence of nothing, since nothing is precisely whatever does not exist. You are not "listening" to yourself.

JPLosman0711 wrote:
In case you didn't know(you do) everything you read is a reflection of you, Be-ing.


Only when I read my own writings, and even then, I may no longer be quite the same who wrote it. Or do you mean everything around us is just our reflection? I hope not.

JPLosman0711 wrote:
This 'thing' you are trying to prove/disprove simply doesn't exist.


Of course it doesn't exist: it is nothing for Christ sake. What is the problem with you guys?

(Listen, why don't you stop arguing with me and go read a little? It could even be Heidegger, I don't mind, but please read a little.)
0 Replies
 
Dasein
 
  2  
Wed 20 Jul, 2011 08:02 am
@guigus,
Guigus; You're still a righteous, argumentative fool, however, the only one you're fooling is you.

Good luck with that. As I said in an earlier post, I don't put ANY validity into what you have to say, which is why I put you on 'ignore'.
hamilton
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jul, 2011 02:37 pm
doesnt something exist???
if something doesnt exist, then nothing is all there is...
JPLosman0711
 
  2  
Wed 20 Jul, 2011 04:00 pm
@hamilton,
Jesus!

Why is it that people like you are so quick to deny their 'self' a chance to 'think' by just randomly posting a conclusion that pops into their head??

Doesn't the 'dullness' of your statement bother you even a little bit? Did you actually read it while you typed it or after you posted it??

You post depicts perfectly that of someone who not only doesn't know what they're talking about, but thinks he can lie about it. Stop attempting to fool your 'self' with witless, thoughtless remarks and then 'feed off' your responses merely because you were taken seriously.

The unwritten rule in life is:

I won't call you out on your bullshit if you don't call me out on mine.
guigus
 
  0  
Wed 20 Jul, 2011 04:33 pm
@Dasein,
Dasein wrote:

Guigus; You're still a righteous, argumentative fool, however, the only one you're fooling is you.

Good luck with that. As I said in an earlier post, I don't put ANY validity into what you have to say, which is why I put you on 'ignore'.


It's better to be a righteous, argumentative fool than an erroneous, non-argumentative one, don't you think? Oh, sorry, I forgot you don't think.
guigus
 
  0  
Wed 20 Jul, 2011 04:39 pm
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:

doesnt something exist???
if something doesnt exist, then nothing is all there is...


You are perfectly correct: this is the problem with the identity between being and nothingness. Hence my question: how is it possible for nothing to be everything? Because nothing is everything, as I already showed. You are the only one so far to see the resulting problem.

(You are giving here an example of what is to think: to raise problems and ask questions---a much-needed example, I should add.)
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  0  
Wed 20 Jul, 2011 04:46 pm
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

Jesus!

Why is it that people like you are so quick to deny their 'self' a chance to 'think' by just randomly posting a conclusion that pops into their head??

Doesn't the 'dullness' of your statement bother you even a little bit? Did you actually read it while you typed it or after you posted it??

You post depicts perfectly that of someone who not only doesn't know what they're talking about, but thinks he can lie about it. Stop attempting to fool your 'self' with witless, thoughtless remarks and then 'feed off' your responses merely because you were taken seriously.

The unwritten rule in life is:

I won't call you out on your bullshit if you don't call me out on mine.


Not everything that is obvious is false. For example, your stupidity.
0 Replies
 
Dasein
 
  2  
Wed 20 Jul, 2011 06:23 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:
It's better to be a righteous, argumentative fool
You have already given us enough evidence for the fact that "It's better to be a righteous, argumentative fool" isn't true.

You got your job done with all of us.

You don't have to go on proving it.
guigus
 
  1  
Wed 20 Jul, 2011 07:21 pm
@Dasein,
Dasein wrote:

guigus wrote:
It's better to be a righteous, argumentative fool
You have already given us enough evidence for the fact that "It's better to be a righteous, argumentative fool" isn't true.


Being a fool is never I good thing (or so I think).

Dasein wrote:
You got your job done with all of us.


So you all agree with me already? I guess you should speak for yourself...

Dasein wrote:
You don't have to go on proving it.


But I want to (who said I had to?). By the way, weren't you going to ignore me? It would be better if you did, since you are (at least allegedly) not interested in what I have to say... Or are you? I suggest you make up your mind.
guigus
 
  0  
Wed 20 Jul, 2011 07:44 pm
@Dasein,
Dasein wrote:

guigus wrote:
It's better to be a righteous, argumentative fool
You have already given us enough evidence for the fact that "It's better to be a righteous, argumentative fool" isn't true.

You got your job done with all of us.

You don't have to go on proving it.


Another thing: it astonishes me how you could read Heidegger's Being and Time so many times without ever asking yourself any question about nothingness... Especially considering that such a question is for Heidegger the most fundamental question of all philosophy. Are you sure you weren't reading Mein Kampf instead?
Dasein
 
  1  
Thu 21 Jul, 2011 08:35 am
@guigus,
I check every so often to determine if you have pulled your head out.

Change is inevitable.
0 Replies
 
Dasein
 
  1  
Thu 21 Jul, 2011 08:47 am
@guigus,
You treat language as if it is some 'thing' outside of your 'self' that you use like you would a hammer. So 'nothing' is a thing that you describe and chat about incessantly without ever entertaining the possibility that who you are is 'not-a-thing-of-this-world'. All you do is defend your position because you have forgotten who you really are.

Who you are exists outside of time and space, yet you insist on defining your 'self' as if you exist within 'time' and 'space'. If you glance back at all of your posts, you will see that it is 'you' (through languaging, speaking, writing,) that defines 'time' and 'space' and that your concepts of 'time' and 'space' don't define you.

I periodically check your posts to determine if you have decided to remember who you are.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/12/2024 at 08:41:49