morality, drugs, existence

@carnaticmystery,

You go on and on for so long with so much nonsense...I think I will restrict myself in my responses to just one or two items until you learn how to be more restrictive.

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
You cannot “continue to crush” that which you have not crushed a first time, CM. C’mon…get with the program.

i am crushing you. for the millionth time in this argument. i am with the program.

You have not "crushed me" even once...let alone for a "million times." You apparently do not have the intellectual wherewithal to "crush me"...or you are unwilling to use it to advantage.

But I love ya, Guy...'cause you are entertainment beyond imagination.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Sorry to say this, but you are wasting your time.

no need to be sorry, i would agree if i cared about time. i have no end game with him, just maintaining my own position.

Quote:

His first and only concern is being right. Just a common troll, in other words.

yeah very likely, but some of his statements to fil indicated that he is very close to 'understanding' non duality. eg. 'the only thing i am aware of is my mind, but i don't know what it is, when it started etc'. that thought process is pretty much a one way ticket to non duality...isn't it?

1 Reply

Cyracuz and Fresco…when I came to this thread I was not insulting nor off topic.

I was courteous…and I was asking questions to find out how the arguments CM was making differ from yours and other non-dualist people here.

CM started the insulting remarks…not I. In the discussion with me...he was the first one to deviate from the topic with me...and make it a personal thing.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
Sorry to say this, but you are wasting your time.

no need to be sorry, i would agree if i cared about time. i have no end game with him, just maintaining my own position.

Quote:
His first and only concern is being right. Just a common troll, in other words.

yeah very likely, but some of his statements to fil indicated that he is very close to 'understanding' non duality. eg. 'the only thing i am aware of is my mind, but i don't know what it is, when it started etc'. that thought process is pretty much a one way ticket to non duality...isn't it?

As I mentioned...I am inclined toward non-duality. I simply have trouble with people who assert it as certainty.

And I have mentioned that for over a decade now...so if you have delusions that you are somehow moving me in a direction...you are exactly that...delusional.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Ummm...did you print the links in invisible ink?

firstly, each of my examples was a "link" to where you said I was wrong. it provided a link between your memory of your own quotes and the evidence of you saying i am wrong. the word link doesn't only mean a clickable web link.

secondly, yes i did 'print' the clickable web links in invisible ink. next to each numbered quote is a link to the exact page where you said all those comments. the invisible ink will reveal itself in a few years, until then just try clicking near the numbers, it should work. don't give up.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
Ummm...did you print the links in invisible ink?

firstly, each of my examples was a "link" to where you said I was wrong. it provided a link between your memory of your own quotes and the evidence of you saying i am wrong. the word link doesn't only mean a clickable web link.

secondly, yes i did 'print' the clickable web links in invisible ink. next to each numbered quote is a link to the exact page where you said all those comments. the invisible ink will reveal itself in a few years, until then just try clicking near the numbers, it should work. don't give up.

So...you are a liar as well as someone who has no respect for his own commentary.

Interesting.

By the way...the only ones of the 40 that truly qualify as me actually saying you are "wrong"...were numbers 8 and 9.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You go on and on for so long with so much nonsense...I think I will restrict myself in my responses to just one or two items until you learn how to be more restrictive.

of course you will. because you have nothing else, everything you have uttered has been crushed, and continues to be.

Quote:

You have not "crushed me" even once...let alone for a "million times." You apparently do not have the intellectual wherewithal to "crush me"...or you are unwilling to use it to advantage.

for the million and first time, crushed again.

Quote:

But I love ya, Guy...'cause you are entertainment beyond imagination

you love non duality, and you hate to associate it with me because you want it to all come from you. but there is no you, or me.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

CM started the insulting remarks…not I. In the discussion with me...he was the first one to deviate from the topic with me...and make it a personal thing.

wow. did not think you would stoop so low as to beg for support? give it up, any non dualist knows a non dualist. if you want to be one, become one, stop looking to us for validation.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
CM started the insulting remarks…not I. In the discussion with me...he was the first one to deviate from the topic with me...and make it a personal thing.

wow. did not think you would stoop so low as to beg for support? give it up, any non dualist knows a non dualist. if you want to be one, become one, stop looking to us for validation.

I most assuredly am NOT a non-dualist...and never said that I was. I merely indicated that incline toward non-dualism...and that the inclination has been with me for a very long time.

You do have trouble with comprehension, don't you, CM?

And I was not begging for support...I was responding to what Cyracuz and Fresco wrote.

You are a delight. Wink

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

As I mentioned...I am inclined toward non-duality. I simply have trouble with people who assert it as certainty.

i never asserted anything as certainty. i talked about my own personal opinions that non duality is the closest i can come to 'certainty'. the reason i would only call it 'close to certainty' is because it is actually beyond certainty, which is a dualistic concept. it is the opposite of certainty, it is what remains when the concept of certainty loses meaning and only one 'anti-certainty' remains.

Quote:

And I have mentioned that for over a decade now...so if you have delusions that you are somehow moving me in a direction...you are exactly that...delusional.

i am not intentionally moving you in any direction, nor do i believe in anybody or any direction existing. it is my opinion that you are moving further in the direction of non duality as a result of this discussion. ie. all your anger and insults toward me are just defence mechanisms to keep your intellect a slave to duality. if you want to consider me delusional, go ahead, but your idea of sanity is naive, and a result of dualistic thinking.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

So...you are a liar as well as someone who has no respect for his own commentary.

nope, thats your idea of 'me'. i actually don't exist.

Quote:

Interesting.

By the way...the only ones of the 40 that truly qualify as me actually saying you are "wrong"...were numbers 8 and 9.

btw the fact that you are stating that means you actually read through it all. loser. hahaha. also no, all the other ones are clear examples of you trying to 'prove me wrong'.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I most assuredly am NOT a non-dualist...and never said that I was. I merely indicated that incline toward non-dualism...and that the inclination has been with me for a very long time.

You do have trouble with comprehension, don't you, CM?

i never said you were either, that is precisely what i was saying, that you are NOT. i said a non dualist knows a non dualist, meaning people like me, fresco, and cyracuz do not need validation to know that we are non dualists. you don't fit into that group.

so i guess it's you who can't comprehend simple english.

Quote:

And I was not begging for support...I was responding to what Cyracuz and Fresco wrote.

really? "CM started the insults!!! wahhhh wahhhH!! beg beg pleeeaaase support me??!! CM MADE IT PERSONAL!! Sad

WAHH WAHH"

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
As I mentioned...I am inclined toward non-duality. I simply have trouble with people who assert it as certainty.

i never asserted anything as certainty. i talked about my own personal opinions that non duality is the closest i can come to 'certainty'. the reason i would only call it 'close to certainty' is because it is actually beyond certainty, which is a dualistic concept. it is the opposite of certainty, it is what remains when the concept of certainty loses meaning and only one 'anti-certainty' remains.

Quote:
And I have mentioned that for over a decade now...so if you have delusions that you are somehow moving me in a direction...you are exactly that...delusional.

i am not intentionally moving you in any direction, nor do i believe in anybody or any direction existing. it is my opinion that you are moving further in the direction of non duality as a result of this discussion. ie. all your anger and insults toward me are just defence mechanisms to keep your intellect a slave to duality. if you want to consider me delusional, go ahead, but your idea of sanity is naive, and a result of dualistic thinking.

You DO state things with certainty.

"i never asserted anything as certainty."...is stated with certainty.

You really are new at this, aren't you?

And obviously you think non-duality is a certainty.

Poor boy. You have bitten off more than you can chew...and now your jaw is hurting.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

Like this!

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
So...you are a liar as well as someone who has no respect for his own commentary.

nope, thats your idea of 'me'. i actually don't exist.

You are certain of that???? Wink

You have got to try to stay away from that. You look like a fool when you make it so easy for me.

Wanna actually do those links in invisible ink??? I can show you how.

Quote:

Quote:
Interesting.

By the way...the only ones of the 40 that truly qualify as me actually saying you are "wrong"...were numbers 8 and 9.

btw the fact that you are stating that means you actually read through it all. loser. hahaha. also no, all the other ones are clear examples of you trying to 'prove me wrong'.

I would not pass over a word you write, CM. You are the most entertaining thing on A2K these days. Wink

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
I most assuredly am NOT a non-dualist...and never said that I was. I merely indicated that incline toward non-dualism...and that the inclination has been with me for a very long time.

You do have trouble with comprehension, don't you, CM?

i never said you were either, that is precisely what i was saying, that you are NOT. i said a non dualist knows a non dualist, meaning people like me, fresco, and cyracuz do not need validation to know that we are non dualists. you don't fit into that group.

so i guess it's you who can't comprehend simple english.

Quote:
And I was not begging for support...I was responding to what Cyracuz and Fresco wrote.

really? "CM started the insults!!! wahhhh wahhhH!! beg beg pleeeaaase support me??!! CM MADE IT PERSONAL!! WAHH WAHH"

I love when you do this, CM. I force you to soil your own thread.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Hey Frank. Why do you think it is insulting to point out that you never start a thread of your own or that you have no notion of the semantic nuances involved when using words especially, "know" and "right" ?

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Hey Frank. Why do you think it is insulting to point out that you never start a thread of your own...

Well...I do not think it is insulting, Fresco...but I wouldn't do it to you. The fact that I show over 250 threads started and you less than 100 should not even come into play.

Why do you ask?

Quote:

...or that you have no notion of the semantic nuances involved when using words especially, "know" and "right" ?

I do notice the nuances...and often comment on them. But you want your slant to be the one used...I prefer others.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I'll rephrase that.

Hey Frank. Why do you think it is insulting to point out that you never start a philosophy thread of your own, or that you fail to acknowledge that meaning of words like "know" and "right" can never be taken as literal in philosophy and are dependent on the context in which they are used ?

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I'll rephrase that.

You would have shown a lot more class if you had simply responded, "Ouch!"

But I guess that is beyond you.

Quote:

Hey Frank. Why do you think it is insulting to point out that you never start a philosophy thread of your own...

Whatever gave you the idea that...

...one, I have never started a philosophy thread of my own, or...

...two, that I would consider it an insult?

Quote:

... or that you fail to acknowledge that meaning of words like "know" and "right" can never be taken as literal in philosophy and are dependent on the context in which they are used ?

Never say "never" Fresco.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I don't have a clue why someone believes words in Philosophy are any more dependent on context then words being used in any context... Laughing

...in fact text and sentences are the substance of proper context for words when words are used with several potential meanings...

...moreover when using words out of their classical context, non obscure authors ought to clarify what they mean in a logical manner if they intend any reasonable communication with opposing opinions.

The fact of the matter is that some people confuse preaching with communicating but of course consulting any simple pocket dictionary will prove them wrong !

Finally this bit is for you Frank...again do yourself a favour n get out of this mess. Just let the God forsaken thread die. In the end of the day you are feeding trolls and to my view an uncompromising vicious kind...these guys are beyond words and frankly beyond any sort of reasoning. They very much admit it themselves when refuting logical debating from the very start, so why I wonder, should we insist in feeding their preaching paranoia ? On close inspection they are not one inch different from radical Christians and the likes... their intention, ironically, is anything but social negotiation. These guys, bluntly speaking, are nothing but a tedious, monophonic, mindless, and profoundly selfish typology of people whose unique intention is to demolish and destroy all that they can't understand, while pating themselves in the back in the process for social reassurance. You deserve better.

0 Replies

morality, drugs, existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know