different
way. .." - CB
Would you mind giving a list of at least a few things that you
consider to be objective? At the outset I have little doubt that we
are dealing with an issue of semantics; however we can continue to
discuss it, no?
My point is that *anything* that is dependent is by definition
subjective.
On May 4, 1:06 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> All objective things are dependent in some way also. Just in a different
> way.
>
> I think subjective things are dependent in the way we associate them with
> each other. Objective things are more physically dependent.
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:46 PM, ornamentalmind
> <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > To me, what Chuck said about 'dependence' is of utmost importance
> > here. All subjective things are dependent.
>
> > On May 3, 9:30 pm, the taoist shaman <bryan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > PSK if at some point someones conciousness dident tell them not to be
> > > selfish then how is it possible that you were ever told not to be
> > > selfish ?
>
> > > pol.science kid wrote:
> > > > selfishness is contrary to collective consciousness true..but isnt
> > > > that the most real thing about us..i wonder..i wasnt told that
> > > > selfishness is bad...would my conscience strike me...keep me in
> > > > check...because...sometimes...my thoughts...they shock and repulse
> > > > me... i loathe myself for having such thoughts..and then i
> > > > wonder...if that is not me...but it is me...it is hard ...to know that
> > > > oyu are what you might condemn in someone else...and so i ask
> > > > often...
>
> > > > On May 3, 1:04 pm, the taoist shaman <bryan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > PSK selfishness arouses discontent because it is contrary to
> > > > > collective consciousness , try reading the meditations of marcus
> > > > > auralius chapter 2 verse 1 from the harvard classics .
>
> > > > > gabbydott wrote:
> > > > > > From a top-down perspective this is correct. But I understood that
> > PSK asked
> > > > > > for individual responses from each of us.
>
> > > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:09 AM, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > But you have to admit there are humans who haven't the chance to
> > even
> > > > > > > consider this type of thinking as their lives are miserable due
> > to
> > > > > > > poverty, war, sickness and all other ills. Plus- what does a
> > culture
> > > > > > > celebrate? Wealth? Power? Etc.? You can hardly fault some for
> > buying a
> > > > > > > false self and image if that is what their culture teaches them,
> > can
> > > > > > > you? It takes a brave rebel to contradict society or challenge
> > group
> > > > > > > thought.
>
> > > > > > > On May 2, 12:20 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > If the selfish would truly search their self, they'd quickly
> > die out.
> > > > > > > > Problem is how they don't see themselves but see themselves in
> > the others
> > > > > > > > with the poor others not knowing that they are not taken for
> > themselves
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > for someone else. My explanation.
>
> > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:57 PM, pol.science kid <
> > r.freeb...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > at the first glance of your reply came a thought to my mind
> > about
> > > > > > > > > collective consciousness...rather a question...does the
> > collective
> > > > > > > > > consciousness exist independently...what does it mean
> > exactly...to put
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > crudely is it the realisation that you are not the only
> > phenomena..but
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > i feel is....it is very difficult to transcend ones own
> > person...but is
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > important....why do we really get irritated with self
> > absorbed or self
> > > > > > > > > seeking people....why do we condemn selfishness..in any
> > sense...are we
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > insecure as to feel deprived because of that ...or is it
> > something
> > > > > > > more.. i
> > > > > > > > > hope i make sense.. and i hope you get waht i am trying to
> > ask...i
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > like all to answer...cos i really want to know....
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:36 PM, DarkwaterBlight <
> > > > > > > douglas.bli...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> This take appeals to my understanding. Perpetually changing,
> > evolving
> > > > > > > > >> and reforming. Input has an outcome and causes an expanded
> > "mind
> > > > > > > > >> space", if you will. Is logic all logical and what is to be
> > said about
> > > > > > > > >> rationalizing the "irrational"? Should my thinking be
> > correct by the
> > > > > > > > >> standards of others or to my own? What of "raising the bar"
> > in
> > > > > > > > >> consciousness and of a paradigm shift to a more correct
> > thinking of
> > > > > > > > >> our "collective mind" ? Of all that goes into into thought
> > and mind is
> > > > > > > > >> this not the desired effect?
>
> > > > > > > > >> On Apr 30, 9:23 am, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > might thought be colored by the mind that engages it
> > ....what is the
> > > > > > > > >> realm
> > > > > > > > >> > of pure thought that you mention here .... is it logic and
> > > > > > > > >> > rationalisation...do you mean the method of employing that
> > > > > > > > >> thought...because
> > > > > > > > >> > ....knowing...percieving something for the first time the
> > mind will
> > > > > > > > >> > automatically fall back on the things it thinks it does
> > know....
>
> > > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Chad Moore <
> > nis...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > Knowledge unites, in being or in identity. Thinking
> > separates, in
> > > > > > > > >> > > subject-object relationship.
> > > > > > > > >> > > Knowing has no place in the ordinary thought process.
> > Thinking
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > >> > > something
> > > > > > > > >> > > which has to be known is wrong, since it moves in a
> > vicious
> > > > > > > circle.
> > > > > > > > >> You
> > > > > > > > >> > > cannot think
> > > > > > > > >> > > of anything you have not known. Such thinking can never
> > take you
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > Truth.
> > > > > > > > >> > > But when you direct your thought to something (say
> > yourself) which
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> have
> > > > > > > > >> > > otherwise
> > > > > > > > >> > > visualized, the thought loses its own characteristics
> > and limits,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > stands
> > > > > > > > >> > > revealed as that Self (Consciousness) itself. Thought is
> > thus
> > > > > > > reduced
> > > > > > > > >> into
> > > > > > > > >> > > its essence.
>
> > > > > > > > >> > --
> > > > > > > > >> > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment