by Terry 62 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Terry.......you apostate bastard! Everyone knows that gods ways are not mans ways......even though we were created in his image. One-a-these-days yer gonna see god face to face and he's gonna make you wear a bra to cover up your saggy boobs.
There ya go again, Gummo! You're fixated on my man boobs! I think you are jealous!!
I am believing more and more: "religion is a snare and a racket".
There is no point.
Live a good life...be good to people...nothing else makes sense.
Codeblue
I'm enjoying this discussion even if I don't understand it all. I sometimes get stuck in all of the language used. For me, this chat brings up the question I grapple with, how can we possibly use the mind to understand the mind? All our perceptions of the world around us come from what our mind concludes them to be. Is there really any "point" but what our own mind creates in any given moment?
There have been studies done where certain brain areas can be stimulated to produce "spiritual experiences". Does that make them real? Seems to me that anything we experience is a product of our very own "three pound universe". What is the purpose in trying to find a "point" or truth within a construct that is so self-limiting?
Not sure that made any sense. Just the ramblings that keep me up at night.
tall penguin
A lovely example of chasing the white rabbit down the rabbithole if ever I read one!
if you say so terry!
You see, it is purposeless to employ words when words do not represent common referents. (Utterly without purpose unless you are a poet surfing sound for sound's sake.)
It would be like using numbers which don't represent quantity within the context of a standard.
yes, i remember this argument terry. you use it whenever you think that someone is talking garbage. semantics, semantic, definions and meta definitions. when someone is saying something you do not agree with, you simply call their words purposeless!
Talking about "knowing" implies there is something to be known.
yes. bang on.
You ask a slippery question: "Do you thinking all knowing ends with the mind?" Knowing is what is DONE with the MIND. So, yes! It is the sly toying with __concepts__floating without definition which makes this trick appear to work.
it's only slippery to you terry. if language and mind is all you ultimately believe in, and that it is impossible to step outside of mind and language, then yes, it's a slippery question. if knowing is only a mind thing to you, then that is all you will know. what can i say? words man!
How can I slam people who are confused about what their mind does?
what do you mean, "their mind"? this implies two entities. i thought people were their minds?
Existence exists. But, only through things as such. Thinking about virtual "things" does not impart actuality.
um, but this sounds like you are now talking just for the sake of sounds.
Materialism is not defined by you in your statement. But, it seems to have an odor in your nostrils. One can almost sense a sneer of sorts. But, I might direct your attention to the fact that only the material exists. So, if one is materialistic one is dealing with things as they really are. Are you somehow implying that unreality and non-existence are superior in some way? Then, we should all dwell in our dreamworld.
hey terry, i'm not sneering at materialism. i'm still a materialist. everything that happens is a natural event. i'm also other things because i can be. without guilt. no more singular doctrine for this cat, including materialism, or objectavism. but being right isn't about being right about one thing and one thing only, as we were forced to believe as witnesses.
I don't slam people who desire to live in a dreamworld. Dreamworlds are in every way ideal and fit us most excellently. The fact those ideal constituencies don't exist would put a damper on things only if one were lucid enough to know it.
good, you don't slam them. k. and you know they don't exist because they simply do not exist, hey? haven't measured any? k. lucidity implies sentience. and sentience implies a growing of awareness. i mean man, if you are talking mind stuff, then talk mind stuff, but it's subjective! and should stay that way! if it's subjective for me, then it's subjective for you, regardless of what we believe. if you are talking manifest reality outside of mind, then be aware that your absolute certainty is only a probability based on measuring ability. as external measuring ability changes, so does the probability. too bad we couldn't use the mind and body to measure some things, as tools. but this is randian sacralege! that is subjective, and objective is the cat's meow! yay team!
Being aware is a reality only when you have your metaphoricals separate from your actuals.
oh cool, i remember. the great separation. separation is everywhere. all things that make the whole are separate, like the human in relation to the universe, and the mind in relation to the human. except that they still make the whole. the whole of nature, of course. i don't deal in supernature since it's a trick word.
Goofy mystical sentences which treat subject and verb, noun and direct object whimsically--corrupt communication. It ends rational analysis for a very good reason. There is a disconnect between mind and referent. This is done deliberately to enable the one writing or speaking to jerk the listener or reader loose from his moorings. You are then at their mercy!
i wouldn't be afraid of the mystics terry. it's not healthy.
I always say to the mystic, "You deny that material objects are important, but, you always exit the room through the door."
oh, they are important though terry. they are all we have! material objects like our brains, and rocks.
so, did you see the mystic leave the room by the door? and this is ultimate for you? then good for you!
tetra
separation is everywhere. all things that make the whole are separate, like the human in relation to the universe, and the mind in relation to the human. except that they still make the whole. the whole of nature, of course. i don't deal in supernature since it's a trick word.
Knowledge is taking bites out of the whole.
We can't fit the universe inside our widdle head.
So we takes bites,tastes, samples; a lot like the wine tasting.
A taste, a swishing around the senses and the aftertaste. Not the entire bottle, mind you! The taste gives us information about the whole bottle WITHOUT HAVING to drink the whole bottle. (And without having to BE the whole bottle.)
After enough listening, sniffing, hearing, tasting and feeling the world around us we draw our inferences and our referents.
But, there is no damage done to the ONENESS of the universe in our doing so.
Man is too small to even need the ONENESS as a concept.
Concepts too only acquire meaning when we define the parts from the whole. The circle is different from other shapes because it is defined by the distinguishing fact that its borders are equidistant from its center point. If you don't distinguish the circle from the square from the triangle there is only the floating concept of SHAPE.
Yes, definitions are the beginning of intelligence. But, those definitions only work for us if they deal with the essential differences between the foreground and the background.
Mystics blur all into a soup. This destroys the intellect at the reward of ONENESS.
I don't begrudge a person desiring ONENESS with the universe. But, destroying communication with one's own mind is quite a cost.
Yes, there is a difference between a person and their mind. If you change your mind you are still the same person.
All dichotomies are a useful tool for comprehension up to the point where they are asserted beyond analysis and become doctrine.
I don't so much "fear" mystery as I find it useless. I don't fear ignorance so much as find it obnoxious. When mystery is a launching pad for curiousity which then leads to appraisal and analysis it is most useful. When it is merely a toke on the bong of mysticism to escape rational encumbrances (intelligent conversation) it grows tiresome.
But, hey---to each his own. As long as the mystic isn't driving my car without using hands or feet I'm cool with the contents of his cogitations.
totally, i agree. if someone does not have hands and feet with which to drive your car, they should be in the passenger seat. or maybe even in the trunk.
what is the definition of ONENESS you are cruising with here, terry? one from the dictionary, or one of your own? is oneness with the universe experienced, with your mind only? or your whole self? is oneness with the universe known only with mind? and is that even possible, considering the schitzophrenic nature of mind and emotions?
you obviously believe that knowledge is something that one aquires, bit by bit, as you illustrate. do you also think that instantaneous and complete knowledge of the nature of the universe is possible via intuition? if you don't, then this is the systemic difference between where we are coming from.
spinoza said that learned knowledge comes from: 1) hearsay or on authority. 2) by the mere suggestion of experience. 3) by reasoning; and 4) by immediate and complete perception.
i realize that you probably agree with 1,2 and 3, (or i assume, i should say). however, to a materialist, i would think that 4 seems absurd, because i know. i am materialist. i understand the issue! a claim to knowledge by intuition? bollocks! but to one who has had the experience, it could be no more certain as that of a reality. i think it would be impossible to assert the fourth way unless he had experienced something of the like. not that we should take his word for it, because that in itself would just be a version of 1. but this is what i am saying. if you haven't experienced 4, then don't presume that it doesn't exist, you know? that would be like someone saying that 3 doesn't exist because they have never had the experience of rational reasoning. like in the WT.
does that mean that one now has complete technical knowledge of the universe, as the materialist pursues? no, just a complete knowledge of its nature. which is a different way of knowing, is all i am saying. different, but belonging in the category of things "known", regardless of it's material manifestations, and technical aptitude.
take care,
tetra
what is the definition of ONENESS you are cruising with here, terry? one from the dictionary, or one of your own? is oneness with the universe experienced, with your mind only? or your whole self? is oneness with the universe known only with mind? and is that even possible, considering the schitzophrenic nature of mind and emotions?
Let me ask you an honest question. Do you take drugs?
Heres a pic of Terry and Tetra goin at it. Notice how Tetra goes for Terry's soft spot and how Terry hides his big boobs from the camera-man.
Let me ask you an honest question. Do you take drugs?
yes.
i guess that you believe this lessens my ability to grow in ways that you (and whatever intellectual culture you belong to) value? if this is the case, let me remind you that "thinking" itself, is a chemical addiction in your own brain, mind, ego, and by extension, body.
tetra
ps: gumtard! ha ha ha!!
"considering the schitzophrenic nature of mind and emotions?"
'splain, Lucy!
