--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
snip
As far as I can tell, the universe is the
*cooperative* co-creation of all of the sentient
beings that compose it. Each of them
You mention the film Mindwalk. I cannot find it on Netflix - has it just been
released?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You mention the film Mindwalk. I cannot find it on Netflix -
has it just been released?
It is sadly one of the hardest films in the world
to find. It was only released on VHS tape, never
on DVD, so your most likely
Thanks - I will try Ebay and the local video store, as well. Back in the 70's,
I loved the Tao
of Physics and also Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I
have not
followed Capra's work since, but am going to check out his institute. An
amazing man. A
book I just finished
Is Ullmann's character based on Liese Meitner?
--- TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You mention the film Mindwalk. I cannot find it
on Netflix -
has it just been released?
It is sadly one of the hardest
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
snip
As far as I can tell, the universe is the
*cooperative*
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks - I will try Ebay and the local video store, as well. Back in
the 70's, I loved the Tao
of Physics and also Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions. I have not
followed Capra's work since, but am
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, I am saying that awareness equals creation-- How could it be
otherwise? There is no a priori universe. It is a comforting idea to
believe in one-- most people do, but not one that can be proven. If
I go home
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ wrote:
More ding an sich aber ding auf sich. Nicht ding auch
sich!
Tell me, y'all, is this thread worth reading? Heck, I can't
even find the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, Ruth, it is worth reading. Deltablues has been
doing a great job representing the empiricist stance
on a very old philosophical question. I've had time
to read some of the contributions, but not all. I
On May 9, 2008, at 1:28 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, Ruth, it is worth reading. Deltablues has been
doing a great job representing the empiricist stance
on a very old philosophical question. I've had time
to read
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip You will have time only if Jim allows you
to. He creates the world, remember?
Sorry Barr, it doesn't work that way. Despite your humorous attempt to
make me responsible for the universe you create, you have created
Sandiego108,
You definitely have the better arguments in this thread, and
additionally, most of those who are disagreeing are obviously
emotional about the issue -- which is a tell that their logic is going
to be dripping with denial. Good luck turning these heads to the light.
Okay, that said,
Sandiego108,
You definitely have the better arguments in this thread, and
additionally, most of those who are disagreeing are obviously
emotional about the issue -- which is a tell that their logic is going
to be dripping with denial. Good luck turning these heads to the light.
Okay, that said,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@
wrote:
More ding an sich aber ding auf sich. Nicht ding auch
sich!
Tell
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sandiego108,
You definitely have the better arguments in this thread,
No argument has been given Edg. It was a series of assertions. After
New's excellent posts I am thinking of them as poetic expressions that
have
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sandiego108,
You definitely have the better arguments in this thread, and
additionally, most of those who are disagreeing are obviously
emotional about the issue -- which is a tell that their logic is
going
to be
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote:
Sandiego108,
You definitely have the better arguments in this thread,
No argument has been given Edg. It was a series of assertions.
curtisdeltablues wrote: Using dreams as an analogy for being a
creator doesn't cut it with me. No one is disputing that our minds
created dreams when we sleep and fantasies when we are awake. It is
the all important jump to the material world that I was trying to
understand. Think of it this
Hey Curtis-- its been a fun one, and I cannot resist responding to
your statement above: in terms of mastery of consciousness over
matter, it is far easier to prove-- close your eyes, and plug your
ears. You are suddenly in a vast black void-- no objects sensed
except perhaps air and
Thanks Edg. This post illustrates where we differ in how we are
viewing the conversation with Jim.
Here is a short list:
1. Analogy of dreams is still not proof of anything for me concerning
our relationship with the world while waking.
2. I am not an extreme skeptic concerning my ability to
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim posted:
Hey Curtis-- its been a fun one, and I cannot resist responding to
your statement above: in terms of mastery of consciousness over
matter, it is far easier to prove-- close your eyes, and plug your
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey Curtis-- its been a fun one, and I cannot resist responding
to
your statement above: in terms of mastery of consciousness over
matter, it is far easier to prove-- close your eyes, and plug
your
ears.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
In philosophy circles, this is known as the I have
my eyes closed and my ears plugged...I can't HEAR you,
I can't SEE you, therefore you don't
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
In philosophy circles, this is known as the I have
my eyes closed and
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
In philosophy circles, this is known as the I have
my eyes closed and my
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
As far as I can tell, the universe is the
*cooperative* co-creation of all of the sentient
beings that compose it. Each of them contributes
a piece of the puzzle -- each perceiving and, on
a quantum level,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
I was trying to point out that
if I understood you correctly concerning
your creation of objects perceived (feel free to correct
For the record, Barry's post below confirms what
I pointed out to him: his rants had NOTHING
WHATSOEVER to do with anything I'd said about
solipsism. That's why I was mocking him.
I doubt the rants had anything to do with what
Jim was talking about either, but Jim can deal
with that.
And let us
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
I was trying to point out that
if I understood you
Judy wrote:
For the record, Barry's post below confirms
what I pointed out to him: his rants had
NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with anything I'd
said about solipsism. That's why I was
mocking him.
For the record, almost everyone's post had
NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with subjective
idealism,
Turq wrote:
That was the whole point of my little
solar plexus exercise. I think the
tree is really there as well. You may
not see it from your point of view,
and thus may come to believe that it
doesn't exists. But if it falls, and
falls on YOU, you're still dead meat.
Correction:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Turq wrote:
That was the whole point of my little
solar plexus exercise. I think the
tree is really there as well. You may
not see it from your point of view,
and thus may come to believe that it
when a tree falls in the forest and no
one is around, does it make a sound
I think yes, which is counter to what I
understand Jim's view is. Correct? Is
the tree not there?
Jim wrote:
...my view is that I don't know.
Objects DO NOT exist independently of their
being known.
I haven't had time to enter this discussion for two
reasons. One, packing up my household is getting to
be intense and the art work is taking time. Bill
Teeple told me yesterday when I showed him the work
that I could sell it at prices so astronomical it
served as the punch in gut to wake me up
snip
Objects DO NOT exist independently of their
being known. They CANNOT endure or continue
to exist without being experienced by someone.
We know only the qualities of objects; they
derive their existence or nature from the
knower.
Are you reading old books again Richard? How do
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip And at the core of some of the discussion is the when a tree
falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound --
thing. Even is the tree even there. I think yes, which is
counter to what I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
willytex@ wrote:
Turq wrote:
That was the whole point of my little
solar plexus exercise. I think the
tree is really there as well. You may
not
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around does it make a sound?
Trick question, cuz SELF is always around -- no sound is ever missed
ever. All da trees maka da thuddy.
Luke 12
6 Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is
forgotten by God.
7 Indeed, the very
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I also didn't want to get into a discussion in which
Judy would take every opportunity to degenerate it
into the kind of hate-fest against me that we all love
so much and that she's guaranteed to
You are certainly right that this is getting to be a
habit. I shall cease and desist on your advice, so
thanks.
I'll get to Blake and solipsism as soon as I am able.
--- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela
Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point being is that many people go through life believing things
and assuming things that may or may not be real. They create their
own reality. They are the creator of their universe. Everyone is the
creator of their own universe, including you.
I'm almost with you on this except the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Turq wrote:
That was the whole point of my little
solar plexus exercise. I think the
tree is really there as well. You may
not see it from your point of view,
and thus may come to believe that it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point being is that many people go through life believing
things and assuming things that may or may not be real. They
create their own reality. They are the creator of their universe.
Everyone is the
Objects DO NOT exist independently of their
being known. They CANNOT endure or continue
to exist without being experienced by someone.
We know only the qualities of objects; they
derive their existence or nature from the
knower.
Curtis wrote:
Are you reading old books again
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Objects DO NOT exist independently of their
being known. They CANNOT endure or continue
to exist without being experienced by someone.
We know only the qualities of objects; they
derive their
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point being is that many people go through life believing
things
and assuming things that may or may not be real. They create
their
own reality. They are the creator of their universe. Everyone is
the
Snip
The premise I am making is three-fold:
1. That if we can experience something directly, it exists for us.
If we don't experience it directly, then its existence becomes a
choice for us because there is no way to prove its existence
directly. Therefore, those things that cannot be
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Objects DO NOT exist independently of their
being known. They CANNOT endure or continue
to exist without being experienced by someone.
We know only the qualities of objects; they
derive their
--Willytex, you're forgetting something in this Consciousness-only
ridiculous Liquorman Neo-Advaita crap.
That is, anything you say comes from MIND. End of story. So go figure
and grok the situation properly.
- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
---More Neo-Advaita nonsense. Your'e the one not groking things
properly. Anything you say comes from MIND. (as well as everybody
else's statements including all the Neo-Advaitins: Balsekar,
Liquorman, Tolle, etc...the whole lot. Most are Communists anyway,
so go figure.)
In
Correction: Apparently Barry is a rank
materialist and NOT a subjective idealist.
Barry is going to have a lot of trouble
refuting D. Hume, I. Kant, and G. Hegel.
Not to mention Ludwig Wittgenstein!
Turq wrote:
Dead meat, the lot of them. :-)
A living tradition isn't exactly
yifuxero wrote:
...you're forgetting something in this
Consciousness-only ridiculous Liquorman
Neo-Advaita crap. That is, anything you
say comes from MIND.
You are mistaken, Sir - there is no 'MIND',
neither in philosophy nor in science; if you
can find one, please show it to me.
There
yifuxero wrote:
...you're forgetting something in this
Consciousness-only ridiculous Liquorman
Neo-Advaita crap. That is, anything you
say comes from MIND.
You are mistaken, Sir - there is no 'MIND',
neither in philosophy nor in science; if you
can find one, please show it to me.
There
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Here is the problem for me. You are using a global term for a
personal reality. Our cognition influences our perception but
though
consensus verification we can go beyond our own personal
understanding
Snip
Yes, I am saying that awareness equals creation-- How could it be
otherwise?
There could be a physical universe independent from our awareness.
Parts of it not experienced directly often end up on books.
There is no a priori universe.
Sure there was pick up a history book, all sorts
Ding auch sich, ding auch sich!!! Kant rules!!
--- curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
Objects DO NOT exist independently of their
being known. They CANNOT endure or continue
to exist without being experienced by someone.
We know only the qualities of objects; they
More ding an sich aber ding auf sich. Nicht ding auch
sich!
--- Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ding auch sich, ding auch sich!!! Kant rules!!
--- curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
Objects DO NOT exist independently of their
being known. They CANNOT endure or
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More ding an sich aber ding auf sich. Nicht ding auch
sich!
Tell me, y'all, is this thread worth reading? Heck, I can't even find
the beginning.
Ruth
Yes, Ruth, it is worth reading. Deltablues has been
doing a great job representing the empiricist stance
on a very old philosophical question. I've had time
to read some of the contributions, but not all. I
haven't participated cause I'm too busy but will have
time in the foreseeable future.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Snip
Yes, I am saying that awareness equals creation-- How could it
be
otherwise?
There could be a physical universe independent from our awareness.
Parts of it not experienced directly often end up on
Despite the out and out weirdness of these events, I must say
without
any irony that the citizens of Fairfield are seriously on to
something. Not only did these people know how to have a good time,
but they were some of the nicest, smartest, and most vibrant folks
I've met in a very long
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I am not being argumentative, but I have a different view.
1. That if we can experience something directly, it exists for us.
What do you mean we kimsobe? (lone ranger joke). I saw a film last
night. Was it real? I
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
wrote:
I am not being argumentative, but I have a different view.
1. That if we can experience something directly, it exists for
us.
What do
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
I've always noticed that a good surprise punch
in the solar plexus cures most
For the edification of others, and the further
tweaking of one Judith Stein, a little explana-
tory exposition:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the first place, the solar plexus tactic doesn't
work as you think it does. In the second place, it
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
*One guy* who was
having trouble connecting with reality, and
Barry can't stop bragging about how he messed
up somebody who was already
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the edification of others, and the further
tweaking of one Judith Stein, a little explana-
tory exposition:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
In the first place, the solar plexus
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
I've always noticed that a good surprise punch
in the solar plexus cures most
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Turq wrote:
I've ALWAYS NOTICED that a good surprise punch
in the solar plexus cures MOST SOLIPSISTS of
their naive belief that they create the universe
all by themselves.
Just to set things straight, my original
Curtis wrote:
I don't need to be directly perceiving
something to be able to conclude that
it exists or for it to be a part of my
universe. My knowledge of things extends
beyond the direct functioning of my
senses.
[snip]
Like most people you probably get almost
all your information
It was I who started this shitstorm with a not-so-simple word! But in
my own defense it also started some interesting discussions about what
it means to know reality.
I actually posed it as a question to you Jim. And I want to be clear
that I would never sum up the concept as exceptional
Turq wrote:
I've ALWAYS NOTICED that a good surprise punch
in the solar plexus cures MOST SOLIPSISTS of
their naive belief that they create the universe
all by themselves.
Jim wrote:
Just to set things straight, my original question
to Curtis was about each of us creating our own
Your knowledge was based on verbal testimony,
not on any sixth sense which extends 'beyond'
or transcendental to, your organs of sense
perception.
All good points and I mostly agree. I was including cognitive
processes of inference and deduction which start with sensory data but
then
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was I who started this shitstorm with a not-so-simple word!
no shitstorm here. :-)
But in
my own defense it also started some interesting discussions about
what
it means to know reality.
I actually
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
Turq wrote:
I've ALWAYS NOTICED that a good surprise punch
in the solar plexus cures MOST SOLIPSISTS of
their naive belief that they create the
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
Turq wrote:
I've ALWAYS NOTICED that a good surprise punch
in the
--The ancient Advaitins probably knew what was going on, but most of
the Neo-Advaitins don't have a clue; and besides, many are Communists.
- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Turq wrote:
I've ALWAYS NOTICED that a good surprise punch
in
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was I who started this shitstorm with a not-so-simple word! But in
my own defense it also started some interesting discussions about what
it means to know reality.
I actually posed it as a question to you
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Turq wrote:
I've ALWAYS NOTICED that a good surprise punch
in the solar plexus cures MOST SOLIPSISTS of
their naive belief that they create the universe
all by themselves.
Jim wrote:
Just to
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108 sandiego108@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
Turq wrote:
I've ALWAYS NOTICED that a good surprise punch
in the solar
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip And at the core of some of the discussion is the when a tree
falls in
the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound -- thing. Even
is the tree even there. I think yes, which is counter to what I
understand
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sandiego108
sandiego108@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's just that you can't really settle the
pragmatic issues if solipsism is theoretically
possible.
I'm not sure it was ever intended to be used as an actual
possibility though. It is more like talking
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
snip
Are you taking the position of solipsism?
Just out of curiosity, how would you refute solipsism?
This is from one of my
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
snip
Are you taking the position of solipsism?
Just out of
Despite the out and out weirdness of these events, I must say without
any irony that the citizens of Fairfield are seriously on to
something. Not only did these people know how to have a good time,
but they were some of the nicest, smartest, and most vibrant folks
I've met in a very long time. And
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
---
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
snip
Are you taking the position of solipsism?
Just out of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
It wasn't really that brilliant. I just woke
up with a perverse desire to see whose buttons
get easily pushed on this subject when its
validity is challenged. Thanks for playing.
Hey, that's your standard state
Doug wrote:
We're going to talk about parallel reality...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/175630
Duveyoung wrote:
The funniest thing to me is that no one here
has yet convinced me that they grok Advaita
enough to know what it is enough to accept
or reject it.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the great example. Its brilliant.
It wasn't really that brilliant. I just woke
up with a perverse desire to see whose buttons
get easily pushed on this subject when its
validity is challenged. Thanks
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug wrote:
We're going to talk about parallel reality...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/175630
Duveyoung wrote:
The funniest thing to me is that no one here
has yet convinced
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I've got no time for selves that are so afraid
of the concept of a joyfully unknowable reality
that they have come to believe that they created
it.
Oops, no. It's just as joyfully unknowable with
solipsism as
Maybe Edg was right - nobody here groks
Adwaita enough to know what it is enough
to accept or reject it. Go figure.
Yes. You are a brilliant, misunderstood and
under appreciated vedic scholar.
Do the Vedas have anything to say about Adwaita?
From what I've read, you'd be hard
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
snip
But that's what's so interesting to me--not *whether*
one or the other is true, but the fact that we can't
tell, that we can never know the most
As long as you realize it's only an assumption...
This point really speaks to the problem I have with the claims of
complete knowledge in Eastern philosophy. The higher states model
lacks what I consider the appropriate human condition epistemological
humility about what we know. Since I
1 - 100 of 212 matches
Mail list logo
