8
   

morality, drugs, existence

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 01:15 am
@carnaticmystery,
Forget definition. The transcendent ineffable position implies that there is no requirement for communication....with whom ? ....about what ? Smile

Try reading Krishnamurti if you are troubled by such quiescence. Alternatively, read Gurdjieff if you would like to think there is "something more". These two represent what I think was the bifurcation of transcendence investigated by many intellectuals of the 20th century.

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 06:38 am
@carnaticmystery,
Quote:
now about the being wrong part. i think i am wrong about everything. right from the start of this thread to now,


Hey...lemme show you I have a heart.

We are in agreement here...or at least, we are almost in agreement. I don't think you have actually been wrong about everything...but you certainly have been dead wrong about many things.

Now that we've got that out of the way... Wink
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 06:48 am
@carnaticmystery,
CM:


You wrote:

Quote:
i am saying there is no true statements, there is no truth


I said it was an assertion (and a contradictory one).

You claimed it was not an assertion and that I did not understand English.

You have now defined “assert” as:


Quote:
verb
1.
state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully


I submit that your comment "I am saying there is (sic) no true statements, there is no truth" IS a "belief" of yours and was stated confidently, forcefully, (albeit erroneously)...and therefore IS an assertion.

So, I am correct...and I don't understand why you are suggesting that I am not.

You do understand how this works, don’t you, CM?

Thanks for substantiating that I was correct.

Please continue. I am enjoying this.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 08:21 am
@fresco,
i am not at all troubled by quiescence, nor do i want to think there is something more. i've read krishnamurti, not gurdjieff. there is a less famous krishnamurti, ug krishnamurti, his ideas are more similar to my own regarding nonduality.

i agree that there is no requirement for communication. but there is also no reason not to communicate.
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 08:23 am
@Frank Apisa,
nice of you to pick the one phrase i purposely said to draw you in: "i am wrong about everything". wow, you actually quoted me and spent a whole post to 'use' it against me. only proving your own petty nature of trying to attack me rather than contribute meaningfully to the discussion.

i said i am wrong about everything because as soon as anything is said, it is instantly wrong. because some new information will prove it wrong. ponder on that for a while good sir.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 08:29 am
@Frank Apisa,
lol such a long post to state such a simple (and terrible) argument.
your argument:
i asserted something because i said it confidently and forcefully.

i already told you that in my own personal opinion, as the speaker of the words, i didn't feel any confidence or forcefulness. i have already conceded to you that i am wrong about everything, and drawn you into a false sense of victory.

so yes sir, i do understand exactly, precisely and absolutely how this works.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 11:19 am
@carnaticmystery,
carnaticmystery wrote:

nice of you to pick the one phrase i purposely said to draw you in: "i am wrong about everything". wow, you actually quoted me and spent a whole post to 'use' it against me. only proving your own petty nature of trying to attack me rather than contribute meaningfully to the discussion.

i said i am wrong about everything because as soon as anything is said, it is instantly wrong. because some new information will prove it wrong. ponder on that for a while good sir.


Don't have to ponder it at all, CM. It simply is another unsubstantiated assertion that you will probably claim is not an assertion.

In any case, your other assertion, namely, "i am saying there is no true statements, there is no truth"...contradicts itself if it is true. And if it is false, it also contradicts itself.

Ponder that.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 11:20 am
@carnaticmystery,
carnaticmystery wrote:

lol such a long post to state such a simple (and terrible) argument.
your argument:
i asserted something because i said it confidently and forcefully.

i already told you that in my own personal opinion, as the speaker of the words, i didn't feel any confidence or forcefulness. i have already conceded to you that i am wrong about everything, and drawn you into a false sense of victory.

so yes sir, i do understand exactly, precisely and absolutely how this works.


Oh, no you don't. But I will help you finally get up to speed.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 12:24 pm
@carnaticmystery,
Laughing
Its taken Frank 10 years NOT to understand that logic is a poor handmaiden of general semantics. Indeed the idea that logical paradoxes are pointers to the ineffable position to which you are alluding are off Frank's radar.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 12:40 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Laughing
Its taken Frank 10 years NOT to understand that logic IS A poor handmaiden of general semantics. Indeed logical paradoxes ARE pointers to the ineffable position to which you are alluding.


Can't you realise that you are alluding to a fixed point to counter the fixity of points ? Can't you see that you allude to one logic against the totality of Logic ? Check the underscores I placed in your text and wake up pal...I really really wonder how stupid can you be to miss it... Rolling Eyes
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 01:02 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
What is the point in discussing "embedded logic" in the context of Frank's simplistic posts ? ...and you are telling me to wake up ! Laughing
Fil. You really have a problem with focusing which could explain why so many hit the ignore button when you show up.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 01:09 pm
Hey...did someone just say that my posts are "simplistic?"

Au contraire!
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 01:18 pm
@Frank Apisa,
If you think you can impose dichotomies like "right-wrong" on a position which specifically transcends such dichotomies, that is a pretty good illustration of being simplistic. You might as well try playing golf under water.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 01:27 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

If you think you can impose dichotomies like "right-wrong" on a position which specifically transcends such dichotomies, that is a pretty good illustration of being simplistic. You might as well try playing golf under water.


Oh, Fresco...you kidder, you!

So...along with thinking there is no REALITY except what humans know and sense...now you are saying the "right/wrong" approach does not meet with your sense of reality.

And you call my arguments "simplistic!"

Some of the philosophers you quote so often here, Fresco, would probably thrash you for bringing stuff like this to a forum like A2K.

If you had any sense of pride or dignity, you'd probably thrash yourself.(Please do not misconstrue my meaning there.)

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 01:36 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

What is the point in discussing "embedded logic" in the context of Frank's simplistic posts ? ...and you are telling me to wake up ! Laughing
Fil. You really have a problem with focusing which could explain why so many hit the ignore button when you show up.


Quite the contrary Fresco I do make the PROPER point about your bull...imbibed logic would have to concede all the stuff you said in there is questionable and ultimately meaningless...which is precisely what you are trying to deny.
I just can only wish you ever come to focus so well as I do to make proper debates...mostly the problem is the opposite as some of you focus on noise rather then open honest consequential debates.
...ah, n before I go this, when you call in, transcending X concepts, you ought to SHOW how did you transcend them precisely by not recurring to the same method you are criticising and arguing against...if you dislike logic make your statements clear without recurring to it (that would be funny to see you trying). Just as well, if you dislike assertions about matters of fact don't make you yourself assertions on matters of fact about others assumptions...finally if you want to hit ignore, do it, quite frankly, your loss not mine.
carnaticmystery
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 07:13 pm
@Frank Apisa,
haha why would you think i care that you are claiming my statements to be assertions? it is only a compliment to me, that you are interpreting confidence where there was none.

furthermore, you are still harping on about one statement, 'there is no truth'. all you want to prove is that it is a paradoxical statement. how much longer can you stick with this argument, especially after i conceded victory to you!! seriously, your picture suggests you are elderly. i actually feel nothing but pity for you.

carnaticmystery
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 07:23 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Can't you realise that you are alluding to a fixed point to counter the fixity of points ? Can't you see that you allude to one logic against the totality of Logic ? Check the underscores I placed in your text and wake up pal...I really really wonder how stupid can you be to miss it... Rolling Eyes


seriously fil and frank are such fun trolls, because instead of being like usual trolls who are purposely saying stupid stuff, they are sincerely trying with their primitive arguments.

fil's latest argument:
because all verbal statements include some element of 'logic', the concept of logic MUST be true. using a statement to disprove logic is impossible, because all statements contain logic within them.

it is exactly like their arguments for reality and existence. their only argument is the apparent existence, coming from experience.

they simply can't understand that concepts such as truth and logic only apply within a certain field. questioning these concepts is looking outside the field.
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 07:29 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
.if you dislike logic make your statements clear without recurring to it (that would be funny to see you trying). Just as well, if you dislike assertions about matters of fact don't make you yourself assertions on matters of fact about others assumptions...

nobody here dislikes logic. its just that myself and fresco do not get bound by it. there is no need for us 'not to use' logic or assertions, in order to prove their non-existence in the deeper scheme. i fully accept that the concept of logic is the way you are understanding my sentences. i am simply theorising that there is something else (nothingness) which is primary and therefore everything that comes from it could be considered secondary and nonexistent in relation to the primary nothingness.

concepts are transcended automatically when consciousness is looked at in sufficient detail. the meanings of words, logic and all other concepts continue to 'exist' but are completely overridden by an alignment with the nothingness in which awareness happens.
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 07:36 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
So...along with thinking there is no REALITY except what humans know and sense...now you are saying the "right/wrong" approach does not meet with your sense of reality.

And you call my arguments "simplistic!"


yes. also, the fact that you state that as some sort of sarcasm, thinking that actually you have 'caught him out', only further proves the simplicity. how can you sit on a discussion forum, and simply say 'there is a reality. there is a right and wrong.' and with nothing more than that simplicity, you start attacking us. hahahahahaa.

Quote:
Some of the philosophers you quote so often here, Fresco, would probably thrash you for bringing stuff like this to a forum like A2K.

If you had any sense of pride or dignity, you'd probably thrash yourself.(Please do not misconstrue my meaning there.)

i'm sorry, i may have misconstrued so please help me. it looks to me like an old man (you, judging by your pic) just revealed his desire for physical abuse to another person (fresco). this leads me to believe that you are a bitter old man who is hoping to inflict some pain back on the world before leaving it in the same pathetic ignorance that you were born with.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Nov, 2013 08:05 pm
@Frank Apisa,
...see what happens when you indulge answering an idiot that fantasises himself as a rebel in philosophy...I warned you. There are some people in this world that are bounded forever to not grasp the most elementary ideas, no matter how simple...the best you can do when confronted with their annoying attention seeking presence is to cross the road n walk.
 

Related Topics

Is "God" just our conscience? - Question by Groomers123
umm, why are my testicles moving? - Question by soccopuppet
Is this because of boredom or drugs? - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
The idiotic 'war on drugs' - Discussion by gungasnake
Can any illegal drug be good for someone? - Discussion by secondchance
Take a Little Trip - Discussion by cjhsa
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.25 seconds on 06/29/2022 at 04:25:00