Friday, April 29, 2011

[Mind's Eye] Re: Given that it is almost impossible to be an individual

Thanks for the specific Ash...

When you add the 'that's all' at the end of "I would like to know what
is behind your [assertion]", I find it the height of
oversimplification. I've been looking at these areas of mind, reality,
etc. for decades and have read a lot as well as having done a lot of
meditation and contemplation in these areas too. Of course, quantity
does not assure quality; however, in this area, there is no simple way
to respond to your question.

I've mentioned the following on numerous occasions yet it seems to be
prudent to do so again. Here is a very short list of issues I have
with even the question being asked. The last one is the most relative
as I see it…at least when it comes to there being no simple answer.

(By the way Chris loves this sort of stuff…or at least he used to!)

And, to show that I'm not going to simply refuse to answer either,
here is one of numerous sources that addresses some of the more
salient issues:

Over the years, I've presented many such articles and we used to have
very interesting discussions about them. Sadly, this no longer is the

On Apr 29, 7:10 am, Ash <> wrote:
> On Friday, April 29, 2011 8:22:17 AM UTC-4, ornamentalmind wrote:
> > Rethinking it, perhaps you are asking about physicality? I just don't
> > know for sure...sorry.  In either case Ash, perhaps you could be real
> > specific in the question. These epistemological and ontological issues
> > get very deep very quickly and countless books have been written about
> > even small aspects of these larger issues.
> Sorry to jump the gun on you OM, I was hoping that instead of going back and
> forth with "yes it is" "no it isn't" for several posts you could get a
> competing assertion on the table. The suspense was killing me. I am willing
> to do the foot in mouth routine if I've stepped on the dialogue here, it is
> known that I can be inept at the social interplay and dance.
> "But neuron(s) firing is." [a thought] - CB
> No, it isn't.- OM
> I think this pair of assertions has appeared at least twice in a row now,
> Chuck has provided his initial rationale for this assertion and I would like
> to know what is behind your. That's all.
> > On Apr 29, 5:11 am, ornamentalmind <> wrote:
> > > Ash, first it would be helpful if you included a small snippet of the
> > > specific post you are addressing for clarity's sake. This way we know
> > > more of what you are responding to.
> > > In this particular case, I'm guessing you are asking me something
> > > about thinking right? Not being sure, I'll await a specific question.
> > > On Apr 28, 7:57 pm, Ash <> wrote:
> > > > Can you provide a better explanation OM? Not just the point but a
> > useful bit
> > > > to put this in perspective. It is obvious that you have something in
> > mind,
> > > > someone should ask..


Post a Comment