[Mind's Eye] Re: Just a thought...

gabby, my blood pressure is quite good.

Now....about trolling...

On May 7, 10:34 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, Orn, you and me together doesn't make us the goddess of justice, that's
> right.
> Keep an eye on you blood pressure. ;)
>
> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 3:57 AM, ornamentalmind
> <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Gabby…, I fear you do not understand my motivation nor even what I was
> > doing.
>
> > We can both claim 'blindness' in the other forever. The result of such
> > attacks is that nothing rational is communicated… it just turns into
> > the blind leading/shouting at the blind. This is exactly why we
> > disallow Ad Hominem (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/
> > arguments.html#hominem ) arguments.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye/web/posting-guidelines
>
> > In case it is important to anyone at all, the link was to the source
> > of my words about:
>
> > "…distinction between differing philosophies is 'reasonable to make'.
> > "
>
> > This is one of our standards…to provide our sources. Neil did. I did.
>
> > On May 6, 6:46 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > There it is back again. You didn't get anything I tried to bring across.
> > > Tell me, Orn, what are you to possess the necessary sense of blindness
> > that
> > > Neil seems to be lacking?
>
> > > You could have posted a wiki link on Geronimo (
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geronimo) to exemplify how well embraced
> > > eastern and western cultures can live across times in perfect innocence
> > > without any scepticism.
>
> > > And what did you do? You posted a wiki link to the name of the person
> > whose
> > > thoughts had been introduced to the discussion by Neil. Unbelievable.
> > Your
> > > embracing the world must indeed feel impossible to describe.
>
> > > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 1:45 AM, ornamentalmind
> > > <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > > > As to there being 'no view', in a sense this is correct. Having 'no
> > > > position' is one of the principles of consciousness…even though as
> > > > this list proves, we all are posters for holding firm to positions!
>
> > > > The thing with 'no position/view' is that this doesn't imply the lack
> > > > of awareness nor even the actual lack of discrimination. It is a
> > > > unique state that embraces everything and everyone all at once…
> > > > something quite a bit easier to imply than to describe!
>
> > > > Of course even the philosopher Senge (Gorampa) concluded that a
> > > > distinction between differing philosophies is 'reasonable to make'.
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorampa
>
> > > > The apparent difference between east/west philosophy needn't be as
> > > > wide as many make it. Yes Neil, it would be nice if Rene's skepticism
> > > > as being a necessary stop on the road. However, as far as I can tell,
> > > > it is but an aborted short trip in the opposite direction.
>
> > > > And, yes, 'all kinds of arguments can always be made'.
>
> > > > Welcome old friend!
>
> > > > On May 5, 3:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > One might go 'Gorampa' on this.  Gorampa's particular brand of
> > Madhyamaka
> > > > > philosophy is defined by his understanding of the relationship
> > between
> > > > the
> > > > > two truths, the use of negation, the role of logic, and proper
> > methods of
> > > > > philosophical argumentation.  His work was banned, one reason I've
> > been
> > > > > looking.  .His views regarding the two truths and negation inform a
> > > > process
> > > > > whereby the Mādhyamika begins with logic and analysis, but ends in a
> > > > state
> > > > > of nonconceptuality, Gorampa contends that there can be no
> > differences
> > > > > between Mādhyamikas with respect to their final view. There cannot be
> > > > > different types of nonconceptuality; freedom from conceptual
> > constructs
> > > > is
> > > > > freedom from conceptual constructs.   The final, ultimate view is
> > > > actually
> > > > > no view at all.
>
> > > > > This might seem as much use as as chocolate teapot.  I suspect there
> > is
> > > > some
> > > > > way for us to commune non-conceptually long before any 'guru state'
> > is
> > > > > achieved and that we need this for knowledge that can shift us from
> > the
> > > > > current interregnum.  One might take Descartes as meaning one has to
> > > > doubt
> > > > > all to arrive at anything of value, and I rather like the notion that
> > > > this
> > > > > is non-conceptual.  I like the sway of these Indian and Tibetan
> > > > arguments,
> > > > > yet think they serve to remind us how much we exclude from our
> > arguments
> > > > > in forgetting what the self does in argument, rushing us to
> > 'decision',
> > > > > forgetting all kinds of argument can always be made  (Pyrhho in
> > western
> > > > > stuff).