Bodhidharma's Tomb

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Robert Larkin		#41	[-]
Posts: 3137 (04/02/08 04:05 PM) sui generis Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Ducky M wrote: I think we ought to have a forum without discord. Is that possible do you think? We can only try... oh,wait! Vinny already shot down that option. Keep smiling, grasshopper. We can't have accord because someone has known discord? That is a very severe view, that once discord has gotten in then we can have no accord. It implies that reality is continuous ... it would take the intervention of God Himself to fix it. But in view of it I cannot be Ducky's Grasshopper because someone has gotten in ahead of you, and so I am instead Helmholz's Parrot.
Ducky M		#42	[-]
Posts: 71 (04/02/08 05:55 PM) Self-Certified Genius Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Perhaps an expert ( whom we have met before ) on what is or is not possible ( not only in this world, but in all possible worlds! ) has a much better answer than mine: I would like to thank Bumpbert and Naturyl for their feedback and support, and to Kwalish Kid, who has been my biggest and most formidable critic. They have made a tremendous difference in the document you just read.
Robert Larkin		#43	[-]
Posts: 3140 (04/02/08 06:06 PM) sui generis Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Ducky M wrote: Perhaps an expert ( whom we have met before ) on what is or is not possible ( not only in this world, but in all possible worlds! ) has a much better answer than mine: I would like to thank Bumpbert and Naturyl for their feedback and support, and to Kwalish Kid, who has been my biggest and most formidable critic. They have made a tremendous difference in the document you just read. Perhaps an expert (from whom we have heard before) has a much better answer than mine: I would like to thank Robert Larkin and Robbydharma for their feedback and support, and to Ogg Oggleby, who has been my biggest and most formidable critic. They have made a tremendous difference in the document you just read and which by the way is much better than that other document and which I wouldn't bother reading in the first place. Cheers, Z.
Ducky M		#44	[-]
Posts: 73 (04/02/08 07:50 PM) Self-Certified Genius Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	I'll have to check with Damon to see if that last quote is real in some possible world...
Robert Larkin		#45	[-]
Posts: 3143 (04/02/08 07:56 PM) sui generis Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Is Damon still around? And while I've only glanced at the paper and a few Wikipedia articles I wonder if the quote is not true in some possible world although I seem to be preferring this one.
Ducky M		#46	[-]
Posts: 74 (04/02/08 08:11 PM) Self-Certified Genius Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	I get it -- in the parallel world of the Goodyear English Dictionary, it all makes perfect horse sense.
Ducky M		#47	[-]
Posts: 75 (04/02/08 08:16 PM) Self-Certified Genius Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Is Damon still around? I was wondering about that myself. He doesn't seem to have posted anything since 2006. Perhaps he ( or his counterpart ) is on a Sabbatical, exploring some parallel universe...
Robert Larkin		#48	[-]
Posts: 3144 (04/02/08 08:18 PM) sui generis Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Horse sense is good. Is Damon still alive? Was the point something about Modal Realism or was it that you were recognized by Damon as a contributor - you are Kwalish Kid, right?
Helmholz		#49	[-]
Posts: 90 (04/02/08 08:51 PM) The Helm of #helm Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Robert Larkin wrote: Are you asking the reader to infer a conclusion? I would prefer not to infer a conclusion but I will suggest an answer and when you come back you can tell me if it's relevant: Language forces approximation on us. I'm saying that you're talking about different concepts yet you're denying any distinctions in the universe. What's to be gained from discussing if language isn't grounded in truth?
Dan Rowden		#50	[-]
Posts: 25 (04/02/08 09:05 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	I'm confused. How is Robert denying distinctions in the universe? If there weren't distinctions there couldn't be language as language is built out of distinctions; indeed, without distinctions there couldn't be consciousness because that is built out of them too. If you happen to be lucky enough to think about the nature of distinctions (and therefore "things" themselves) in the right way you'll end up seeing their empty nature - i.e. that they have no fundamental or core nature at all; they're just there. Seeing this asap is very handy, as it stops you wasting your life chasing ghosts.
Laird Shaw		#51	[-]
Posts: 49 (04/02/08 09:30 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Dan, what is the difference between distinctions and boundaries? I find it fascinating that you (and presumably Robby) appear to affirm the existence of innate distinctions in reality and then go on to deny the existence of innate boundaries, instead describing them as purely artifacts of consciousness/mind. All that I'm saying is that these "distinctions" in reality, when they occur in certain situations such as a chemical and phase distinction, constitute an objective boundary independent of any need to artificially construct one in the mind. You ask me to name a single thing. Could there be a simpler question posed I wonder? How about the cardboard box sitting on top of my cupboard? Its cardboard is separated from the wood of the cupboard upon which it rests (and from the atmosphere in which it otherwise exists) by its different chemical composition, leading to repellent electromagnetic forces that allow me to lift it up off the cupboard and move it somewhere else. Whether or not I artificially construct boundaries around this box with my mind, I will be able to move it around as an essentially separate thing - the boundaries are preexisting and innate! Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that things are completely black and white (yes that was something of a lame pun). I acknowledge that we can often break a thing down into constituent things - for example the cardboard box thing can be broken down into the sides of cardboard things joined together by the metallic staples things. I'm simply saying that to deny that objective boundaries exist - leading to objectively separate things - is to deny reality both as we perceive it and as science describes it to us. Having said that, I'm willing to consider that quantum mechanics (QM) and other similar theories might point at a far more interconnected reality than appears to us at the macroscopic level; I'm discussing here, however, classical, macroscopic reality rather than the underlying weirdness of QM, of which I know far too little. I'm also not saying that things are so separate as not to interact with other things. The model that I'm proposing is that of essentially separate things which interact with, communicate with and respond to one another.
Dan Rowden		#52	[-]
Posts: 26 (04/02/08 10:07 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Laird Shaw wrote: Dan, what is the difference between distinctions and boundaries? There's no "B" in distinctions.
Dan Rowden		#53	[-]
Posts: 27 (04/02/08 10:36 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Laird, Your cardboard box example is irrelevant unless you show me where that box begins and ends beyond the mental distinction that is inherent in perception. Citing different characteristics between spatially adjacent objects - which are yet more distinctions - doesn't achieve that. What is a boundary?
Ducky M		#54	[-]
Posts: 76 (04/02/08 11:21 PM) Self-Certified Genius Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	you are Kwalish Kid, right? Nope - this is probably him.
Robert Larkin		#55	[-]
Posts: 3145 (04/02/08 11:27 PM) sui generis Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Ducky M wrote: you are Kwalish Kid, right? Nope - this is probably him. Is that someone I know? I certainly know you, Damon, Nat, and Bump; distinguished group.
vinny the hack		#56	[-]
Posts: 1486 (04/02/08 11:27 PM) Administrunktorbot Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Dan Rowden wrote: Laird, Your cardboard box example is irrelevant unless you show me where that box begins and ends beyond the mental distinction that is inherent in perception. What's the point in arguing anything. It's all based on perception. "Perception is reality" is an oft-repeated truism. Even our understanding of what each of us writes here is based on perception. You may as well ask "What is "is"? It's been successfully used as an argument before. "Distinction", like the word "is" is whatever we assign it to be/mean. You can't argue that something is or is not distinct based on our perception of the thing. The thing is distinct based on convention that it fits within the meaning we have assigned the word "distinct". If it's valid to argue distinction based on perception, then it's valid to argue the meaning of the word "distinct" based on our perception of the word. And if that's valid, it invalidates all argument. Click here to view my music videos. (Will open a new window.) Last Edited By: vinny the hack 04/02/08 11:41 PM. Edited 2 times.
Robert Larkin		#57	[-]
Posts: 3146 (04/02/08 11:39 PM) sui generis Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Dan Rowden wrote: I'm confused. How is Robert denying distinctions in the universe? If there weren't distinctions there couldn't be language as language is built out of distinctions; indeed, without distinctions there couldn't be consciousness because that is built out of them too. If you happen to be lucky enough to think about the nature of distinctions (and therefore "things" themselves) in the right way you'll end up seeing their empty nature - i.e. that they have no fundamental or core nature at all; they're just there. Seeing this asap is very handy, as it stops you wasting your life chasing ghosts. I think that's a nice answer although for 'theoretical reasons' I would avoid the idea thinking can (itself) lead to a perception of emptiness. It won't kill anyone to believe that objects can have a discrete, independent, or separate existence, but if you understand what thinking is and does you'll perhaps drop that belief; it's certainly not a necessary one. Languages are indeed built from distinctions but the point of Zhuangzi, Robbydharma, Dan, and all the great men of the east is that while distinctions are necessarily drawn they convey upon the distinguished no particular properties, certainly not 'existence'. Measurement is a function of language, and there are no measurements without measurers. And b., I really didn't know for sure what you were getting at ...
Ducky M		#58	[-]
Posts: 77 (04/02/08 11:39 PM) Self-Certified Genius Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Is that someone I know? I vaguely recall having seen that name at "Common Ascent", and possibly also at "The Ponderer's Guild". I don't think I ever responded to any of his posts.
vinny the hack		#59	[-]
Posts: 1487 (04/02/08 11:51 PM) Administrunktorbot Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Not everyone thinks highly of "The Kid"... You've never been anything but a fucking piece of crap, Kwalish. Die in a fiery explosion. You come onto my goddamn board and accuse my husband of being all sicko with kids? Fuck you in your goddamn ear. After dealing with the disgusting asshole who was inappropriate with our 11-year old daughter this summer, and putting our all into the therapies for our littlest son's autism, having some dickwit make an offhand comment like that about Varaj and children makes me want to fucking puke. I mean, we all know Varaj is a pervert, but he's no pedophile. You crossed the motherfucking line, cocksucker. thread Click here to view my music videos. (Will open a new window.)
Robert Larkin		#60	[-]
Posts: 3147 (04/03/08 12:10 AM) sui generis Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Report Post	Dan Rowden wrote: What is a boundary? Without language there are no boundaries. Some people find that an absurd idea, yet chimpanzees do perfectly well without ever drawing a boundary. Of course their discussions of philosophy are 'wholistic' anyway, seeking to escape the bounds of language by stroking, grooming, and even throwing feces in the heat of the argument; very animated. Those discussions are however rather too 'New Agey' for the other apes. [22:56] <vinny_the_hack> as in my post, boundaries exist because we say they exist. [22:56] <@robbydharma> I know; good one, too. [22:56] <vinny_the_hack> Your ideaof a boundary may differ from my idea... [22:57] <@robbydharma> Could be the physical extreme of an object. [22:57] <vinny_the_hack> but that doesn't invalidate that something approximating what the dictionary says is a bouodary, exists. [22:57] <@robbydharma> My dictionary says quite explicitly Robert is always right and he always uses the right word. [22:58] <vinny_the_hack> This is why philo doesn't thrill me. You rarely get anywhere. [22:58] <@robbydharma> True; the neat thing is discovering something and the chances you'll discover something in a message board philosophy discussion are practically nil. - Two gorillas discussing the thread.

Yuku free message boards

Bodhidharma's Tomb

Quick Reply