8
   

Inflate or destroy self?

 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2013 09:28 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
True, especially if by change I were stressing transformation of one form into another form. I prefer to think of it in terms of changing, of a continous PROCESS of becoming (something else).
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2013 09:57 pm
@JLNobody,
You see but the point is that infinity or no infinity, is very, very, important to that equation...believing in motion so bluntly may be your Achilles heel...n then again, maybe your right... Wink
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Jun, 2013 11:21 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Perhaps. Time may tell.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 01:53 am
@JLNobody,
No, Fresco's response doesn't "help," as he is simply avoiding the question of definitions to suggest that you are entitled to use whatever definitions it pleases you to use, which ignores entirely the point about language as a medium of communication. Dualism as a description is reasonable when the so-called dualism is intentional (as in religion's good versus evil). As an accusation against the thinking of others, or simply an accusation against the cosmos itself (as in the old Buddhist mind-set of states of consciousness versus physical existence)--i cannot accept "dualism" at all.

What you are willing to take seriously is immaterial to me. If you post self-serving nonsense, then i'm going to say you are posting self-serving nonsense.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 02:03 am
A conch shell which contains a conch (the animal, the sea snail) and an empty conch shell are, nevertheless, both conch shells. This thread, as is the case with Cyracuz' other thread, is deteriorating into silly word games.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 10:48 am
@Setanta,
Set, are you suggesting that all insight into the nature of experience be completely constrained by conventions of language? Poetry would sure go down the tube if that were so. And it does seem that both of us are expressing perspectives that are "self"-serving. But "nonsense"? That is unnecessarily coarse of you.
Definitions vary; they are not absolute or always fixed. In Spain, as I understand it, pendejo denotes the upper part of a foot. In Mexico it refers to someone behaving like you. Razz
Ah, coarseness does feel good.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 11:01 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I have no idea of what you were getting at here, Fresco, but I have NEVER given a thumbs up or thumbs down to any post.


I'm not sure which 'The Frank' he was referring to. I have given a few thumbs up but rarely. I'm sure there was some point to this jab, but it missed me.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 11:18 am
@IRFRANK,
IRFRANK wrote:

Quote:
I have no idea of what you were getting at here, Fresco, but I have NEVER given a thumbs up or thumbs down to any post.


I'm not sure which 'The Frank' he was referring to. I have given a few thumbs up but rarely. I'm sure there was some point to this jab, but it missed me.


Since he acknowledged being mistaken on this point after my response, I am guessing it was addressed to me, Frank.

The point of it mystifies me also.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 11:59 am
@Frank Apisa,
It is quite funny just how important it became to distinguish between two selfs (the Franks) in a thread going on about no selfs...I for one am glad I can distinguish both ! Wink
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Jun, 2013 12:53 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

It is quite funny just how important it became to distinguish between two selfs (the Franks) in a thread going on about no selfs...I for one am glad I can distinguish both ! Wink


Right! Wink
0 Replies
 
saw038
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2016 07:01 pm
@Cyracuz,
I think it depends upon what kind of self-destruction you speak of.

You mean it in a very literal sense that the notion of self is being destroyed, then you are describing something close to what many eastern religions seek.

However, if you take the societal interpretation of the phrase "self-destruction," then you are left with something more malicious. My interpretation of this phrase, in this context, is that someone is doing behaviors that is detrimental to one's own well-being, such as self-harm.

I would say that the latter is a negative view and the former is a positive one.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
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
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/19/2018 at 09:15:20