So, here's the big idea: cause as much trouble/chaos/discord as you can, and wake as many cabbages up as possible by making them see the horrible troofs.
Cool, right? isn't that the greatest thing ever?
I'm not so sure.
What's the point in that? Is there one?
Even, if by some near-impossible turn of events, we succeed in waking everyone on the planet up, what good does that do? Would it even do anything?
Don't get me wrong. I live for the fun of showing people how the world is, and then laughing as they crap their pants. Really, there isn't much point to anything in life except "the lulz."
However, something must have put all this here. Seriously, things don't come into being from non-being.
[tangent] "George! what are you doing in bed with that other woman!" "Martha! This isn't what it looks like! Uh, she came from non-being." "Oh, alright, I almost thought you were cheating on me, but being from non-being, thats just fine."
[/tangent]
So, if serving someone's absurd concept of a deity is obviously out, what do we do with life?
Eat, work, think, have fun, eat, get depressed, have some more fun, eat a little more, sleep (insert cycling table of meaningless events here)
Is there anything worthwhile out there?
Note: feel free to ignore the 50 post thing. I wanna hear what you really think. don't just be nice 'cause i'm a "n00b."
it was love for allah that led me here
the lulz seem to be more of a responsibility than a hobby
and this seems to be more of a process in motion than it is something that anybody is 'trying to do'
as above so below
everything is everything
from 1 comes 2 comes many
now - im not saying that you should take my word for it
the only way you can find out is to pursue the 'meaningless' perspective and see where it leads you
i understand where you are coming from
from a certain perspective it makes sense
investigate it and explore it
try to die and see what happens
Quote from: LHX on January 26, 2007, 02:01:07 AM
it was love for allah that led me here
and this seems to be more of a process in motion than it is something that anybody is 'trying to do'
as above so below
everything is everything
from 1 comes 2 comes many
now - im not saying that you should take my word for it
the only way you can find out is to pursue the 'meaningless' perspective and see where it leads you
i understand where you are coming from
from a certain perspective it makes sense
investigate it and explore it
try to die and see what happens
1. but where did 1 come from?
(thats probably a pointless, and purely argumentative question)
2. i think i will continue to do the "meaningless" stuff for now, just because its the most meaningful thing i've found so far.
and:
3. i'll try that. :lol:
CK,
Just attempting to compile a worldview that doesn't suck.
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on January 26, 2007, 12:52:52 AM
Is there anything worthwhile out there?
I dont know
dont think I'll ever know
I'll still keep looking though
Word of advise - be weary of those who say they found
it
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on January 26, 2007, 05:03:59 AM
Just attempting to compile a worldview that doesn't suck.
Then you're at least halfway there
Things may appear to come from nothing. Just sayin'.
Also, never stop. Continue your train of thought and view everything if you want in cycles. Be a stupid cocksucker for a year of your life but strive to be a smart cocksucker. Always apply the knowledge from different mindsets to the mindset you currently have but don't overdo it. Sometimes it's a game of moderation and sometimes it's something else entirely. Read, reflect and perhaps most important of all: know where to canalize your hate.
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on January 26, 2007, 05:03:59 AM
1. but where did 1 come from?
(thats probably a pointless, and purely argumentative question)
naw it aint pointless
keep in mind:
just because every
thing you know of and can easily reference has a identifiable beginning, doesnt mean that every
thing has a beginning
you cant deny the existence of something that 'has no beginning' just because you havent directly observed anything like that
as long as you acknowledge this - you cant go wrong
you dont have to advocate it, but you cant really deny the possibility
that would almost be the same as saying that you can predict the future
when you are in unexplored regions, you cant really use anybody else as a point of reference - you have to explore it yourself
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on January 26, 2007, 12:52:52 AM
Is there anything worthwhile out there?
Hell yeah, man!
LuLZ over every ridge.
Just keep walking.
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on January 26, 2007, 12:52:52 AM
So, here's the big idea: cause as much trouble/chaos/discord as you can, and wake as many cabbages up as possible by making  them see the horrible troofs.
I think you are limiting your arsenal. One doesn't necessarily have to engage solely in trouble-making, chaos-creating to open minds. Having conversations with friends, family, co-workers, etc. who you think may be open to new ideas is a noble and constructive start.
QuoteEven, if by some near-impossible turn of events, we succeed in waking everyone on the planet up, what good does that do? Would it even do anything?
I'm sure you didn't mean this literally and of course waking "everyone" up isn't the goal, and shouldn't be. To focus it more, if you are able to present to even a small handful of people the possibility that there may be things in their life and environment that they are missing, that is an accomplishment. I've always said, those armed with themselves have the best chance at survival. Does that mean they are going to enjoy a life paved in gold and lined with lollipop trees? Of course not. It just means they may have a bigger reaction time to events. It means that maybe they won't take that dead-end job that will turn them into a complete tool. Maybe a father will stop being so damned serious about everything and play more with his child and become a Dad. There are lots of possibilities. It won't change the whole of the world, but it can change something.
QuoteSo, if serving someone's absurd concept of a deity is obviously out, what do we do with life?
Eat, work, think, have fun, eat, get depressed, have some more fun, eat a little more, sleep (insert cycling table of meaningless events here)
Is there anything worthwhile out there?
Discordianism, Erisianism, whatever isn't going to give someone the meaning of life. That's not the point. You do what YOU want to do with life. If you find joy in being a cabbie and hitting the pub afterwards, then that's what you do. You don't do it because you HAVE to, you do it because you WANT to. That being said, we all still have to do things we don't want to do. So nothing is 100%. But, being able to maximize the amount of control you can have on your own course in life is a noble and encouraged goal. Those who can see more of their world, see more of their surroundings, and see and feel more of themselves will have better chances and more control. Again, those armed with themselves have the best shot at this.
QuoteNote: feel free to ignore the 50 post thing. I wanna hear what you really think. don't just be nice 'cause i'm a "n00b."
you ask valid questions. I see no reason for anyone to cause you any turmoil.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 26, 2007, 03:37:48 PM
you ask valid questions.  I see no reason for anyone to cause you any turmoil. 
Not so fast my friend...
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 26, 2007, 03:37:48 PM
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on January 26, 2007, 12:52:52 AM
So, here's the big idea: cause as much trouble/chaos/discord as you can, and wake as many cabbages up as possible by making them see the horrible troofs.
I think you are limiting your arsenal. One doesn't necessarily have to engage solely in trouble-making, chaos-creating to open minds. Having conversations with friends, family, co-workers, etc. who you think may be open to new ideas is a noble and constructive start.
QuoteEven, if by some near-impossible turn of events, we succeed in waking everyone on the planet up, what good does that do? Would it even do anything?
I'm sure you didn't mean this literally and of course waking "everyone" up isn't the goal, and shouldn't be. To focus it more, if you are able to present to even a small handful of people the possibility that there may be things in their life and environment that they are missing, that is an accomplishment. I've always said, those armed with themselves have the best chance at survival. Does that mean they are going to enjoy a life paved in gold and lined with lollipop trees? Of course not. It just means they may have a bigger reaction time to events. It means that maybe they won't take that dead-end job that will turn them into a complete tool. Maybe a father will stop being so damned serious about everything and play more with his child and become a Dad. There are lots of possibilities. It won't change the whole of the world, but it can change something.
QuoteSo, if serving someone's absurd concept of a deity is obviously out, what do we do with life?
Eat, work, think, have fun, eat, get depressed, have some more fun, eat a little more, sleep (insert cycling table of meaningless events here)
Is there anything worthwhile out there?
Discordianism, Erisianism, whatever isn't going to give someone the meaning of life. That's not the point. You do what YOU want to do with life. If you find joy in being a cabbie and hitting the pub afterwards, then that's what you do. You don't do it because you HAVE to, you do it because you WANT to. That being said, we all still have to do things we don't want to do. So nothing is 100%. But, being able to maximize the amount of control you can have on your own course in life is a noble and encouraged goal. Those who can see more of their world, see more of their surroundings, and see and feel more of themselves will have better chances and more control. Again, those armed with themselves have the best shot at this.
QuoteNote: feel free to ignore the 50 post thing. I wanna hear what you really think. don't just be nice 'cause i'm a "n00b."
you ask valid questions. I see no reason for anyone to cause you any turmoil.
Thanks, man. that clears a few things up. (though I probably should have used waking people up in a better context. I have done the things you suggested, and it is pretty rewarding most of the time. Though, I must say that some people are so set in their beliefs it doesn't matter how good your argument is, they simply lack good reasoning skillz, or they refuse to think on a deep level.)
Oh, and thanks for the compliment.
Quote from: LHX on January 26, 2007, 01:01:28 PM
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on January 26, 2007, 05:03:59 AM
1. but where did 1 come from?
(thats probably a pointless, and purely argumentative question)
naw it aint pointless
keep in mind:
just because everything you know of and can easily reference has a identifiable beginning, doesnt mean that everything has a beginning
you cant deny the existence of something that 'has no beginning' just because you havent directly observed anything like that
as long as you acknowledge this - you cant go wrong
you dont have to advocate it, but you cant really deny the possibility
that would almost be the same as saying that you can predict the future
when you are in unexplored regions, you cant really use anybody else as a point of reference - you have to explore it yourself
Right.
Example:
Let's say, for argument's sake, that you cannot get being from non-being. Once this is agreed upon, which it should logically be, you can disprove that nothing is eternal.
So, if nothing is eternal, then everything is temporal.
If everything is temporal, it was created (at some point)
If everything was created, then everything was brought into being from non-being.
Being from non-being cannot be, therefore something must be eternal.
I don't know what is eternal, but obviously something put all this here, and it must have omnipotent power.
But.. thats bogus too, because omnipotent power is self limiting. (i.e. Could an omnipotent being create a rock heavier than that being could lift? ...Think about it, if you haven't already.)
So, I'm pretty undecided as far as that goes.
Quote from: Sepia on January 26, 2007, 09:25:02 AM
Things may appear to come from nothing. Just sayin'.
Also, never stop. Continue your train of thought and view everything if you want in cycles. Be a stupid cocksucker for a year of your life but strive to be a smart cocksucker. Always apply the knowledge from different mindsets to the mindset you currently have but don't overdo it. Sometimes it's a game of moderation and sometimes it's something else entirely. Read, reflect and perhaps most important of all: know where to canalize your hate.
They may appear to, but the concept that something can happen without a cause is a bit too post-modernistic for my taste. It has far too many implications that don't make sense.
Other than that, yeah. thats the plan, except for some reason, i don't really have hate. well, not
real hate anyway.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on January 26, 2007, 05:36:56 AM
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on January 26, 2007, 12:52:52 AM
Is there anything worthwhile out there?
I dont know
dont think I'll ever know
I'll still keep looking though
Word of advise - be weary of those who say they found it
Words to live by. srsly.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 26, 2007, 03:49:22 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 26, 2007, 03:37:48 PM
you ask valid questions. I see no reason for anyone to cause you any turmoil.
Not so fast my friend...
Lets see what you got, sukka.
(not really an insult, i'm just trying to spur you on here.)
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on January 27, 2007, 12:01:17 AM
Example:
Let's say, for argument's sake, that you cannot get being from non-being. Once this is agreed upon, which it should logically be, you can disprove that nothing is eternal.
So, if nothing is eternal, than everything is temporal.
If everything is temporal, it was created (at some point)
If everything was created, than everything was brought into being from non-being.
Being from non-being cannot be, therefore something must be eternal.
I don't know what is eternal, but obviously something put all this here, and it must have omnipotent power.
But.. thats bogus too, because omnipotent power is self limiting. (i.e. Could an omnipotent being create a rock heavier than that being could lift? ...Think about it, if you haven't already.)
So, I'm pretty undecided as far as that goes.
For arguments sake doesn't wash in this situation. thinking that "that you cannot get being from non-being" is limiting yourself to a shitstorm of paradox that usually scares most people away from the abyss and back to more mundane matters.
Therein lies the key.
[/shitty crowley impersonation]
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 27, 2007, 12:37:45 AM
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on January 27, 2007, 12:01:17 AM
Example:
Let's say, for argument's sake, that you cannot get being from non-being. Once this is agreed upon, which it should logically be, you can disprove that nothing is eternal.
So, if nothing is eternal, than everything is temporal.
If everything is temporal, it was created (at some point)
If everything was created, than everything was brought into being from non-being.
Being from non-being cannot be, therefore something must be eternal.
I don't know what is eternal, but obviously something put all this here, and it must have omnipotent power.
But.. thats bogus too, because omnipotent power is self limiting. (i.e. Could an omnipotent being create a rock heavier than that being could lift? ...Think about it, if you haven't already.)
So, I'm pretty undecided as far as that goes.
For arguments sake doesn't wash in this situation. thinking that "that you cannot get being from non-being" is limiting yourself to a shitstorm of paradox that usually scares most people away from the abyss and back to more mundane matters.
Therein lies the key.
[/shitty crowley impersonation]
Good point. I should really come up with a better example than that, but that's the easiest one to explain. The world is full of paradox that is blindly accepted by the bulk of the population, and i think thats bloody ridiculous.
But hey, thats just how it is. Its not like you can force people into using reason. (though to be honest, you have to use reason to argue that reasoning isn't valid.)
There is a limited amount you can do with "the bulk of the population" ffs don't let that put you off doing what you can though. However, there is an infinite ammount that you can do with yourself. Change shit one mind at a time.
Ding ding ding.
Silly gets a cookie!
I think it's easy to ask "why" and "how" when you really just don't know where to start in the first place. You start with #1, and then move on to your immediate sphere of influence. Once you've exhausted that, you go on to the larger reaches of it. And so on, and so forth.
The scope you reach and the effectiveness you have is on a dial that you move to the frequency you desire. No one except the men with the handcuffs can really stop you.
And even they can only go so far.
Yup. In the end, I guess that's about all you can do.
By changing yourself, you can change the world. Really, you are the only person you have complete control over.
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on January 28, 2007, 08:32:27 PM
Yup. In the end, I guess that's about all you can do.
By changing yourself, you can change the world. Really, you are the only person you might have complete control over.
fix
You can say that "being does not come from non-being."
But then you have to ask yourself what the fuck you're talking about.
Perhaps, like physics says, energy cannot be created or destroyed, However, it can change forms very quickly and easily. Since some energy (and mass, since Einstein linked the two) is easier to see than others, you may very well experience something as coming from apparently nothing.
There's a huge difference between what "is" and what "appears to be".
Quote from: LMNO on January 29, 2007, 02:12:15 PM
You can say that "being does not come from non-being."
But then you have to ask yourself what the fuck you're talking about.
Perhaps, like physics says, energy cannot be created or destroyed,  However, it can change forms very quickly and easily.  Since some energy (and mass, since Einstein linked the two) is easier to see than others, you may very well experience something as coming from apparently nothing.
There's a huge difference between what "is" and what "appears to be".
Doesn't explain how it got here in the first place. Plus particles have been observed appearing, out of thin air as it were.
1. Just because the answer currently is "we don't know" doesn't allow for the creation of some world view to fill the gap.
2. What you're calling a "particle" is not related to any commonly used definition of the word "particle".
Quote from: LMNO on January 29, 2007, 03:28:12 PM
1.  Just because the answer currently is "we don't know" doesn't allow for the creation of some world view to fill the gap.
2.  What you're calling a "particle" is not related to any commonly used definition of the word "particle".
K I have to admit to being ignorant to the scientific terminology but I remember them all getting quite excited about this discovery. Dunno if it was molecules or atoms or what but one of these just materialised, prolly in a vacum or something.
It all comes from ayin via soph and aur. The human brain baulks at it -it's inconceivable. But if you try real hard you can come real close and a whole lot of other shit falls into perspective.
Quote from: LMNO on January 29, 2007, 03:28:12 PM2.  What you're calling a "particle" is not related to any commonly used definition of the word "particle".
uh vacuum energy (or was is vacuum pressure)? that's one particles and one anti particle (i forgot what kind of they usually are) appearing out of nothing, because of uncertainty and then usually they just meet eachother and mutually annihilate as if nothing happened.
but they can also interact with other particles before they get destroyed or something and this is sometimes used in certain equations to "borrow energy" in a certain way. (well ok i have to ask some of my friends how this exactly works again, but that was the general gist of it afaik)
now there's probably a good reason why our current existence is NOT a result of this "borrowed energy", probably something like that the chance would be immensely small for anything remotely resembling existence appearing out of vacuum, i think.
i kind of think the ain soph aur incomprehensibility principle is probably correct. not that there's any way of proving it but i would say that there is not much as fundamentally incomprehensible as non-being.
Quote from: LMNO on January 29, 2007, 03:28:12 PM
1. Just because the answer currently is "we don't know" doesn't allow for the creation of some world view to fill the gap.
Hooray for you being cool!
Just because something has a cause we can't observe or identify doesn't mean it didn't have a cause.
Quote from: triple zero on January 29, 2007, 09:04:37 PM
i kind of think the ain soph aur incomprehensibility principle is probably correct. not that there's any way of proving it but i would say that there is not much as fundamentally incomprehensible as non-being.
I don't know what that is, really. I even googled it. From what I can tell, it's essentially the same as the whole socrates thing. (True wisdom is knowing that you can never
really know anything.)
Thats cool. I can get behind that.
Quote from: LMNO on January 29, 2007, 02:12:15 PM
You can say that "being does not come from non-being."
But then you have to ask yourself what the fuck you're talking about.
Perhaps, like physics says, energy cannot be created or destroyed, However, it can change forms very quickly and easily. Since some energy (and mass, since Einstein linked the two) is easier to see than others, you may very well experience something as coming from apparently nothing.
There's a huge difference between what "is" and what "appears to be".
I agree. that statement
is a bit broad.
And there is all sorts of sciencey stuff that you can throw into the works.
Does it mean anything? Maybe. At this point, very little can be proven, so I try not to put all my eggs in one basket.
CK,
Loves to use the same metaphors old people use.
CK, the "ain sof aur" bit is from Kaballah. There are 3 levels of Nothingness before you reach the first Sipharoth, Kether. Here's a basic introduction:
http://www.byzant.com/Mystical/Kabbalah/Veils.aspx
LMNO...did he just call you old? :lol:
I get your point, CK...but I think all LMNO is pointing out is that part of the science that we DO "know" is the fact that matter changes form. This can go a long way to explaining shit that we don't understand too well, esp when trying to do what you are suggesting. Moving forward with what we know, instead of making up what we don't just to satisfy the "can't be known" factor (something that bugs us know-it-alls to no end).
1. Compared to some on this board, i am old.
2. I'm gonna take CK's first response as non-sarcastic. Just because.
i just added this to the SSOOKN archives, not read too much of it yet but, in the interests of physics and kabbalah....
www.lettherebelightbook.com
Quote from: LMNO on January 30, 2007, 01:51:36 PM
CK, the "ain sof aur" bit is from Kaballah. There are 3 levels of Nothingness before you reach the first Sipharoth, Kether. Here's a basic introduction:
http://www.byzant.com/Mystical/Kabbalah/Veils.aspx
Wow. Didn't know that.
My first response was to simply dismiss this as a bunch of Madonna-style bullcarp. (yes, carp.)
But, being the sort of fellow I am, I read the thing.
Turns out, I was right. Its not like I can't respect someone's religious views, its just that unless you can
prove something to me, I'm not going to believe it.
Hell, you can believe there's an invisible unicorn named Gerald on the moon for all I care. unless you can prove he's there, I'm going to think you're a nutjob.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to think that when i die something special is going to happen, and i'll be surrounded by "God's love", all the people I cared about that died, and my old dog. I'd even be happy with the whole lake of fire thing.
But.. Thats just crazy talk. Truth is, (or at least what I think it is) Man invented the idea of "God" a long time ago so that the species wouldn't self-destruct. If you had the thought that someone is always watching what you do, you'd be less inclined to do bad things.
But that doesn't answer the question of why (or how) things came into existence.
Should that question even be answered? wouldn't that take the fun out of life?
CK,
Ironically not from Missouri
Proof is a two dollar ho. The rational are her pimps.
and that biatch owes me some money
CK, I tend to think of Kaballah as a metaphor, and a way of looking at things. It's simply another frame to hang your reality on.
As old uncle Al would say, "use it. see if it works. then judge."
What's the difference between kaballah and any other system of game rules? Nothing. So there's no reason to reject it out of hand.
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2007, 01:13:38 PM
CK, I tend to think of Kaballah as a metaphor, and a way of looking at things.  It's simply another frame to hang your reality on.
As old uncle Al would say, "use it.  see if it works.  then judge."
What's the difference between kaballah and any other system of game rules?  Nothing.  So there's no reason to reject it out of hand.
There is one good reason - Madonna Ciccone
Bitch could give blowjobs a bad rep
That shit aint Kaballah.
An hey, for every Jerry Falwell Evangelical Xtian, there's a Johnny Cash Evangelica Xtian. As an example.
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2007, 01:56:26 PM
That shit aint Kaballah.
Maybe not to the insider but to the outsider it's exactly what the kaballa is (that and what the newspapers say)
See my comment about Evangelicals.
Or the difference between Wahabi and Sufi.
While I'm sure there are some vapid, empty human shells who will latch on to Kaballah because of Madonna (right after they adopt an African baby) I tend to think many can see it for what it is.  An attention getting device.  Much with Mr. Cruise and Scientology.  I have no doubt they have some sincerity in their beliefs but I am immediately suspicious of anyone who flaunts their religion the way they do in the public arena.  
Yup.
It's just another esoteric tool for trying to break Universe down into understandable pieces.
Like I Ching.
Over here the tabloids realy went apeshit with it. Prolly some C of E agenda "OMG they're promoting a belief system that actually works! This could fuck us right up"
By the time they were done describing kaballa even I was fkin terrified of it. A brainwashing cult that makes you donate all your money and carry out holy executions and stuff. They made it sound almost as bad as fundie christinsanity
You can probably disregard all of this.
As it turns out, there are things that can't be seen that are true.
I don't know what to believe anymore... Cool! Nihilism!
Except not. Matter breaks down, something IS eternal, though I haven't the slightest as to what it is, and well, thats about it.
CK,
Life's a meaningless joke? That sucks.
Edit: At least it's funny.
damn
whats with all these new members who arent assholes all of a sudden?
CK: your non-commital indecisiveness is welcome here anytime man
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on February 09, 2007, 04:40:24 AM
I don't know what to believe anymore...
sometimes it good to look at yourself with fresh eyes forgetting what you think you know
most people say they do that, but most people dont cause, as in my case, a lot of the time you don't like what you see
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on February 09, 2007, 04:40:24 AM
You can probably disregard all of this.
As it turns out, there are things that can't be seen that are true.
hey how did you come to that conclusion? i'm really interested..
i found something similar when i discovered that there are even false things that are true (srsly) so paradoxes are real (really too bad hypocrisy doesn't *need* justification, or else you'd have one right there) but that was some mathematical proof (yea i know i keep going on about that, but it blew my mind oK?*) and i wonder from what direction you came?
* also it was love. yes maths and love, blew my mind :mrgreen:
Electromagnetism. Gravity.
True things that can't be seen.
LMNO
-Literalist. For now.
gravity
yeah right
you gonna start talking about mahdgickqual chakras in a unicorn next?
Quote from: LHX on February 09, 2007, 02:44:17 PM
gravity
yeah right
you gonna start talking about mahdgickqual chakras in a unicorn next?
would you trust a 20 ton steel barstool floating above your head to be held up by nothing but mahdjickal unicorn chakra power against the gravity that tries to pull it down?
:D
No, I think I'd have to reinforce it with a couple of Astral Pillars.
well, ok, but you can see astral pillars.
the REAL trick is of course to attach rocket boosters and get it into orbit:
(http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/05136/barstool.gif)
ill believe it when i see it
Quote from: triple zero on February 09, 2007, 01:03:10 PM
* also it was love. yes maths and love, blew my mind :mrgreen:
proofs or it never happened.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 09, 2007, 04:21:21 PM
Quote from: triple zero on February 09, 2007, 01:03:10 PM
* also it was love. yes maths and love, blew my mind :mrgreen:
proofs or it never happened.
Agreed! CAT scan required as evidence of blown mind.
... oh and someone qualified to explain to me what I'm looking at.
Silly seems to have missed the "proofs" joke, as far as I can tell.
yes, the astral CAT scan clearly shows a lack of triggering the correct funny-Hadit
Quote from: triple zero on February 09, 2007, 01:03:10 PM
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on February 09, 2007, 04:40:24 AM
You can probably disregard all of this.
As it turns out, there are things that can't be seen that are true.
hey how did you come to that conclusion? i'm really interested..
i found something similar when i discovered that there are even false things that are true (srsly) so paradoxes are real (really too bad hypocrisy doesn't *need* justification, or else you'd have one right there) but that was some mathematical proof (yea i know i keep going on about that, but it blew my mind oK?*) and i wonder from what direction you came?
* also it was love. yes maths and love, blew my mind :mrgreen:
Easy answer, dude.
I started to question my basic beliefs. I mean
really question.
I asked myself: Why is anything here, and how did it get here in the first place? Obviously things must have had a beginning, a creation, and therefore a creator.
Well, I thought, "Somehow, the big bang happened and suddenly all of this stuff is here. Obviously this is true, since that whole theism thing is retarded."
"What caused the big bang? How do we even know that the universe has been expanding the way it is since it started? And whats the deal with dark matter? Isn't science supposed to be limited to what's observable?"
"Damn.. I guess science just assumes these things so their theories hold up to the public."
"You betcha. Look at that whole dinosaur bone thing."
"Well, if science is wrong, theism is dumb, and Buddhism sounds too funny to be true (Hah! all is dooka? that sounds far too silly to be right), what is the answer? what is the meaning in life?"
"Hell if I know, dude. All I know is that something is eternal (as stated previously). I reckon you'll have to go on some sort of quest for knowledge or something goofy like that."
"Yeah, that sounds pretty cool."
CK,
Searchin' fo' the holy grail of meaning.
Also, that whole "I think therefore I am." thing doesn't fully use reason. It assumes a lot, and uses cyclical logic (
I think, therefore
I am). Eff that noise.
Oh, and yeah. Thats how discussion goes in my head. Does that mean I'm a schizophrenic?
But, to answer your question really easily, the fact that I'm aware of myself and of my thoughts is a big clue to the fact that some things exist that just aren't observable.
Quip: 'Dooka' is actually spelled Dukkha in Pali (दुक्ख in sanskrit), its usually translated to mean the suffering inherent in the lives of all sentient beings.
Right. Thats cool. Honestly, I'm totally down with Buddhism. It's just the whole of western culture that isn't ready to accept that the material things might not be important. Also, I've never been able to meditate.
Thanks for the spelling correction there, I'm for too lazy to google it.
I dunno, certain anarchists seem down with that. Personally, I'm more down with the meditation thing, as I like some of my possessions.
Quote from: Cain on February 10, 2007, 04:04:17 PM
I dunno, certain anarchists seem down with that. Personally, I'm more down with the meditation thing, as I like some of my possessions.
The laypracticer doesn't have to give up his possession.
Just sayin.
Even so...I don't think giving up my possessions will make me any more holy. Especially since I don't actually have that many, beyond books.
Quote from: Cain on February 10, 2007, 04:16:34 PM
Even so...I don't think giving up my possessions will make me any more holy. Especially since I don't actually have that many, beyond books.
Giving up you possessions won't make you holy. What makes you holy is your lack of attachment to them. I don't much like the word holy anyway, too much association with divine power. Dalai Lama would be better off not using it.
The reason a monk gives up his posessions is to remove himself from attactment. Since suffering is caused by clinging, by attachment, ridding yourself of material things aids in ridding yourself of attactment. But really, the lack of want for material things has to come first. Leaving them behind is just following through.
I don't like that reasoning, its way too black and white. In fact, thats pretty much why I don't like religion.
Yeah...
I must say, I'm not terribly attached to much of anything, these days.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 10, 2007, 04:27:49 PM
The reason a monk gives up his posessions is to remove himself from attactment. Since suffering is caused by clinging, by attachment, ridding yourself of material things aids in ridding yourself of attactment. But really, the lack of want for material things has to come first. Leaving them behind is just following through.
Quote from: Cain on February 10, 2007, 04:44:35 PM
I don't like that reasoning, its way too black and white. In fact, thats pretty much why I don't like religion.
The buddhist 'way' is simply that a way or means to an end. When the monk enters the monastery he is enrolling in enlightenment university. Just like a traditional uni the monastery has a curriculum. This curriculum is what they call the way. Unlike normal university the monk does not go home at night. Enlightenment is a slightly more immersive degree than normal academic ones. Probably because it isn't merely academic but parallels can still be drawn.
Think about when you're in a lecture; it's implicitly recommended (and probably in a rule somewhere) that you don't do things like listen to personal stereos, play ps2 or read the daily telegraph. Why? Because these things make it really difficult to take in what the lecturer is telling you. Behaving like this is likely to cause you to fail your degree so it's recommended you don't, for your own benefit, not because these people are nazi bastards and don't want you to enjoy yourself.
It's the same with buddhism, only the lecture/study time is 24/7. One of the key lessons in the tao curriculum is freedom from attachment. It's much easier to teach and learn this lesson if the student isn't surrounded by things they are attached to. The sweet sharp shock of losing all their possessions will initially trigger feelings of loss. Dealing with these feelings, understanding where they come from and eliminating them is the lesson. How you gonna teach that to someone who's addicted to super mario and won't stop playing it on their gameboy?
True, but there is no reason why you cannot do both. I enjoy playing on my...actually, I don't have a console. I enjoy listening to my music collection, however, it hardly takes up all my time.
If you really wanted to remove attatchment, I'd suggest people to try and acquire as much as possible, as fast as possible. Talk about getting bored fast.
Quote from: Cain on February 10, 2007, 05:38:21 PM
If you really wanted to remove attatchment, I'd suggest people to try and acquire as much as possible, as fast as possible. Talk about getting bored fast.
Then how do you explain middle class America, huh?
Seriously though, the whole freedom from possession is exactly what silly said - freedom from distraction. Personally, I think it would be really cool to do the pulp fiction thing and walk the earth. Thats enlightenment. Or hobos.
I guess my whole point is that life is pretty terrible without some sort of faith in something, whatever it may be. God, a better tomorrow, the continued evolution of the human race, yada yada yada.
Who knows? Maybe I'll come up with something that makes sense and is meaningful.
CK,
Hopeless Romantic
Not trying hard enough. They clearly don't have everything, or even close to everything that they want. Of course, you always get some people for whom enough is really not enough.
Of course, my view may be skewed by the fact I rarely subject to advertising, not watching TV or listening to the radio.
Its just one way, Cain. Its not like Buddhists try to coherse, guilt, scare and force you into following it.
The attachment issue is prolly best summed up by the Happy Mondays line "The things that you own start to own you" It comes down to when you have something or someone that you really love to bits there's an inherent fear of losing it, largely subconscious in most cases but it's there nonetheless. The ultimate attachment is life itself. Some people tie themselves in all sorts of worry-knots fretting about the inevitable fact that they're going to die and this sorta casts a really gloomy shadow over their whole outlook on life. Part of satori is realising that, even if you happen to die right now, it's still been amazing. The Buddhist focusses on the amazingness of now and forgets all about the past the future, especially the slowly rotting bit at the end, whenever that might be.
I have lots of cool stuff and cool friends and I like to go to cool places. If I lose something or a friend or I can't go somewhere ever again, fuck it. It/they were still cool as fuck, regardless of the fact that they're gone. People have a tendency to come away with shit like "I'd be heart broken if you ever left me" or "I'd be lost without my house" What purpose could entertaining a notion like that possibly serve? Don't get me wrong, sometimes people close to me die or leave or I end up homeless and it pisses me off for a while (I aint a buddhist monk) but, ultimately, life goes on and it's still pretty amazing even without them.
Quote from: SillyCybin on February 10, 2007, 06:22:20 PM
The attachment issue is prolly best summed up by the Happy Mondays line "The things that you own start to own you" It comes down to when you have something or someone that you really love to bits there's an inherent fear of losing it, largely subconscious in most cases but it's there nonetheless. The ultimate attachment is life itself. Some people tie themselves in all sorts of worry-knots fretting about the inevitable fact that they're going to die and this sorta casts a really gloomy shadow over their whole outlook on life. Part of satori is realising that, even if you happen to die right now, it's still been amazing. The Buddhist focusses on the amazingness of now and forgets all about the past the future, especially the slowly rotting bit at the end, whenever that might be.
I have lots of cool stuff and cool friends and I like to go to cool places. If I lose something or a friend or I can't go somewhere ever again, fuck it. It/they were still cool as fuck, regardless of the fact that they're gone. People have a tendency to come away with shit like "I'd be heart broken if you ever left me" or "I'd be lost without my house" What purpose could entertaining a notion like that possibly serve? Don't get me wrong, sometimes people close to me die or leave or I end up homeless and it pisses me off for a while (I aint a buddhist monk) but, ultimately, life goes on and it's still pretty amazing even without them.
Actually, no, they don't forget about the rottingness at the end. One of the most powerful mindfulness meditation is upon images of the body in the 7 states of decay. The point is not to forget. Its the opposite, to be mindful of everything.
"Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe" - you an me both :lol:
Quote from: SillyCybin on February 10, 2007, 07:12:26 PM
"Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe" - you an me both :lol:
Well, I did pick that screenname for a reason. 8)
I thought attachment was given up because it causes pain.
"Want causes suffering" or some jazz.
As long as i'm happy, i'm holding onto the ps2.
Any honest buddhist will tell you - their way ain't the only way. I see monks (in most any religion) as fast trackers. I tend to just amble along my life and concentrate on enjoying it on my terms. PS2 features quite prominently in those terms of late. If I find myself in a situation where I don't have a PS2 (Kayak trips ain't conducive, what with salt water, and no leccy) do I get all fidgety? Nope - that's lack of attachment for me. Lack of attachment, while still hoarding cool stuff - that's what makes me different from a monk.
...and if I die before I wake - it's been a hoot.
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on February 10, 2007, 03:34:15 PMIsn't science supposed to be limited to what's observable?"
Quote from: JHMIII in 'Beneath Reality'As the nineteenth century turned, some philosophers embraced positivistic notions about knowledge that tended to discard concepts that were not rooted in some firm encounter with the commonsensical "real world."
The success of "physics without explanations" suggested that attempts to explain were fruitless, and that science should be rid of such baggage. At its worst, this movement doubted the existence of atoms because they could not be seen.
At its best, it supported Heisenberg's search for a new atomic mechanics that would depend only on features of atoms that could be seen. Some people still speak of scientific formulas as if they were no more than concise summaries of many direct observations, as opposed to statements about the behavior of abstract features of re-ality, like force and energy, that cannot be visualized.
In this view, physics is just a way of arranging experimental results systematically, and the elaborate theoretical structures are only mnemonic devices for the data ,Äì as arbitrary as the mnemonic jingles medical students recite to recall the names of the cranial nerves.
Physicists themselves, however, and especially those who work at the frontier, despite all admonitions from philosophers, seem to believe in the reality of the things their equations describe. They are encouraged in this belief by the great value it has for discovery. I once attended a symposium in which a philosopher of science asked why physicists believe nature has to obey symmetry laws. I said "Because it wins them Nobel prizes!"
Quote from: LMNO on February 12, 2007, 02:43:57 PM
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on February 10, 2007, 03:34:15 PMIsn't science supposed to be limited to what's observable?"
Quote from: JHMIII in 'Beneath Reality'As the nineteenth century turned, some philosophers embraced positivistic notions about knowledge that tended to discard concepts that were not rooted in some firm encounter with the commonsensical "real world."
The success of "physics without explanations" suggested that attempts to explain were fruitless, and that science should be rid of such baggage. At its worst, this movement doubted the existence of atoms because they could not be seen.
At its best, it supported Heisenberg's search for a new atomic mechanics that would depend only on features of atoms that could be seen. Some people still speak of scientific formulas as if they were no more than concise summaries of many direct observations, as opposed to statements about the behavior of abstract features of re-ality, like force and energy, that cannot be visualized.
In this view, physics is just a way of arranging experimental results systematically, and the elaborate theoretical structures are only mnemonic devices for the data ,Äì as arbitrary as the mnemonic jingles medical students recite to recall the names of the cranial nerves.
Physicists themselves, however, and especially those who work at the frontier, despite all admonitions from philosophers, seem to believe in the reality of the things their equations describe. They are encouraged in this belief by the great value it has for discovery. I once attended a symposium in which a philosopher of science asked why physicists believe nature has to obey symmetry laws. I said "Because it wins them Nobel prizes!"
teh mang - now totally sold on reading this book!  :D
Quote from: LMNO on February 12, 2007, 02:43:57 PM
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on February 10, 2007, 03:34:15 PMIsn't science supposed to be limited to what's observable?"
Quote from: JHMIII in 'Beneath Reality'As the nineteenth century turned, some philosophers embraced positivistic notions about knowledge that tended to discard concepts that were not rooted in some firm encounter with the commonsensical "real world."
The success of "physics without explanations" suggested that attempts to explain were fruitless, and that science should be rid of such baggage. At its worst, this movement doubted the existence of atoms because they could not be seen.
At its best, it supported Heisenberg's search for a new atomic mechanics that would depend only on features of atoms that could be seen. Some people still speak of scientific formulas as if they were no more than concise summaries of many direct observations, as opposed to statements about the behavior of abstract features of re-ality, like force and energy, that cannot be visualized.
In this view, physics is just a way of arranging experimental results systematically, and the elaborate theoretical structures are only mnemonic devices for the data ,Äì as arbitrary as the mnemonic jingles medical students recite to recall the names of the cranial nerves.
Physicists themselves, however, and especially those who work at the frontier, despite all admonitions from philosophers, seem to believe in the reality of the things their equations describe. They are encouraged in this belief by the great value it has for discovery. I once attended a symposium in which a philosopher of science asked why physicists believe nature has to obey symmetry laws. I said "Because it wins them Nobel prizes!"
1. Thats cool, I suppose. But, labeling invisible forces is a lot different than saying an electron can be at two places at the same time and/or pop in and out of existence for no reason. Those silly quantum physicists.
2. :mittens:
1. It doesn't. Wanna read the pdf? [/pusher man]
2. I know.
Hah. Totally, dude.
Quote from: Comrade Kenan on February 13, 2007, 07:11:58 PM
Hah. Totally, dude.
You wont get it ya dumb stoner bastard!
Ha can't believe I missed yuor 50
th :cheers:
Yeah, dude. Came and went. I'm going to have to come up with a new title.
Eh, it probably happen any time soon.
i thought your title said Martin Luther there for a second
:ninja:
It does.
fuck
now i cant even remember what it used to say
damn brain
Hence the ninja.
Hint: it had to do with guitars.
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE LUTHIER!
i believe it said 'master luthier'
teh mang - occasionally notices stuff, often doesn't.
Thats so sweet...
Damn, now I'll have to come up with something better.