Guest guest Posted September 26, 2002 Report Share Posted September 26, 2002 Sorry, but are answers like that one, which require sarcastic replies. Where did you get the notion you need to be out of anything to experience it? Can't you experience a room while inside, your body or your consciousness? You are all tangle up in concepts. IT can be experienced, Dan, it can't not be known, but it can be experienced. You might not know you are experiencing it, but you can't experience nothing else. Swallow the whole manifestation in one gulp. Don't take little bites at this and that with your conceptual mouth. Once that happens, the unknown will be there like emptiness is felt on entering a huge dark room. Like silence is felt. like complete darkness is seem. You need to stop all this conceptual tail chasing. Best wishes, Pete New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2002 Report Share Posted September 26, 2002 Hi Pete Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > Sorry, but are answers like that one, which require > sarcastic replies. Only to one who is sarcastic-minded. But it is much easier to have the focus on something which seems to deserve a sarcastic response, than to look at where that tendency is coming from, to resort to sarcasm. This is the challenge of looking into oneself, to be a lamp to oneself-- much easier to think oneself witty while being a lamp to another ... Where did you get the notion you > need to be out of anything to experience it? Look into this, Pete. See what this is, when there is no experience of it, and no one there to be experiencing any aspect of it. Any experience is passing, moving, changing. > Can't you > experience a room while inside, your body or your > consciousness? That's to what I'm pointing: no inside, no outside. Freedom in this sense isn't the opposite of being bounded -- it's when neither boundedness nor liberation apply. > You are all tangle up in concepts. No. You are trying to understand this conceptually, so you feel tangled up. Nothing I've expressed is at all a tangle. It is utter simplicity. IT can be > experienced, Dan, it can't not be known, but it can be > experienced. If you know it is an experience, then that is known. Truly unknown has no experience to it -- is neither passing nor staying the same. You might not know you are experiencing > it, but you can't experience nothing else. I agree. There is no experience that is not it. There couldn't be anything that is something other. But experience is based on contrast, change, moments changing into other moments. When there is no other moment into which this moment can change, where is the experience? > Swallow the whole manifestation in one gulp. Exactly -- only there's no swallower, do nothing into which it can be gulped. You take in totality only by being it, and by being it, there is no sense " I am totality. " It isn't an experience, never has been -- and has never been commented upon. Don't > take little bites at this and that with your > conceptual mouth. There is no conceptualizer who can take bites, either little or small. Once that happens, the unknown > will be there like emptiness is felt on entering a > huge dark room. There is nothing that is supposed to happen, Pete. The idea that something will happen, and then the unknown will appear, is conceptuality. The unknown already always is the case. Like silence is felt. like complete > darkness is seem. It's not like anything. You need to stop all this > conceptual tail chasing. Your advice here is as conceptual as anything else, and is being delivered by one conceptual entity to another. Space, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2002 Report Share Posted September 26, 2002 --- dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: >> Where did you get the notion you > > need to be out of anything to experience it? > > Look into this, Pete. > > See what this is, when there is no experience of > it, and no one there to be experiencing any > aspect of it. Any experience is passing, moving, > changing. Pete:Of course Dan, there is no experiencer, only experiences. To be that passing tumbling cascade of experiences and the void they fall into, and to be the intuition that the cascade, and the void are one. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. > > Can't you > > experience a room while inside, your body or your > > consciousness? > > That's to what I'm pointing: no inside, no outside. > Freedom in this sense isn't the opposite of > being bounded -- it's when neither boundedness > nor liberation apply. Pete:Well,now that is better, isn't it? > > > You are all tangle up in concepts. > No. You are trying to understand this conceptually, so you feel tangled up. Nothing I've expressed > is at all a tangle. It is utter simplicity. Pete: I'm not trying to understand anything. If there is something to understand, it's that trying to understand any of these is useless. The only reason I write anything is to let people know that words, thoughts, concepts are useless when it comes to realizing. It's when we become absolutely disgusted with understanding, thinking and words that an opening could appear. What is, is beyond meaning. Looking for meaning is chasing your tail. > IT can be > > experienced, Dan, it can't not be known, but it > can be > > experienced. > > If you know it is an experience, then that is known. > Truly unknown has no experience to it -- is neither > passing nor staying the same. Pete: No, you misunderstood. I say it can't be known, in the sense it can't be understood. It comes via a new sense, a third eye, a chakra, or whatever you want to call it, names are irrelevant. It comes to the brain and the brain is baffled by its complete newness and simplicity. It can't be recreated, as memory recreates sadness or joy. It's new every time, we sense is there all the time, we sense we always have been and will be it, but it can't be owned as we own this pitiful, fake self called pete, or dan. > > You might not know you are experiencing > > it, but you can't experience nothing else. > > I agree. > > There is no experience that is not it. > > There couldn't be anything that is something other. > > But experience is based on contrast, change, > moments changing into other moments. > > When there is no other moment into which this moment > can change, where is the experience? > > > Swallow the whole manifestation in one gulp. > > Exactly -- only there's no swallower, do > nothing into which it can be gulped. Pete: Exactly. As long as there is a hungry mouth (self)there won't be any Big Gulp> > You take in totality only by being it, > and by being it, there is no sense > " I am totality. " It isn't an experience, > never has been -- and has never been > commented upon. Pete: Well, Dan, maybe we are using the word experience in different ways. There is no good word for it. Realization might be better, but not much. Commented it has been. Described? It can't be done. Poetry comes close, but no cigar. > Don't > > take little bites at this and that with your > > conceptual mouth. > > There is no conceptualizer who can take bites, > either little or small. Glad to hear that. > Once that happens, the unknown > > will be there like emptiness is felt on entering > a > > huge dark room. > > There is nothing that is supposed to happen, Pete. > The idea that something will happen, and then the > unknown will appear, is conceptuality. Pete: We have to fight the believe in concepts with concepts. Try to answer me without using concepts. I like staring at a blank screen. > The unknown already always is the case. > > Like silence is felt. like complete > > darkness is seem. > > It's not like anything. Pete:I didn't say it was like those things. I say an absence, a void can make an impression on the brain. > You need to stop all this > > conceptual tail chasing. > > Your advice here is as conceptual > as anything else, and is being > delivered by one conceptual entity > to another. Pete: Right. Those are the toys we have. If we want to play we have to use them. I must confess I like playing with you. Although, I try to kick your phantom butt once in a while. Good response, thanks, Pete New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2002 Report Share Posted September 26, 2002 Hi Pete -- > Pete:Of course Dan, there is no experiencer, only > experiences. Well, there is this sensation of an immediate experience. At the same time, it isn't being experienced. Go figure -- such is the wonder and imminent danger of nonduality :-) > To be that passing tumbling cascade of > experiences and the void they fall into, and to be the > intuition that the cascade, and the void are one. > Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. Black is white and white is black. In is out, and out is in. Words are not-words, and not-word is word. > > > > Can't you > > > experience a room while inside, your body or your > > > consciousness? > > > > That's to what I'm pointing: no inside, no outside. > > Freedom in this sense isn't the opposite of > > being bounded -- it's when neither boundedness > > nor liberation apply. > > Pete:Well,now that is better, isn't it? Honestly, I wouldn't know. It all depends on the reading of it. > > > You are all tangle up in concepts. > > > No. You are trying to understand this conceptually, > so you feel tangled up. Nothing I've expressed > > is at all a tangle. It is utter simplicity. > > > Pete: I'm not trying to understand anything. If > there is something to understand, it's that trying to > understand any of these is useless. With nothing to be understood, the need for understanding anything drops -- including even this: " there is no need to understand that there is nothing to be understood ... " > The only reason > I write anything is to let people know that words, > thoughts, concepts are useless when it comes to > realizing. The concept that concepts are useless, is an anti-concept concept. The anti-concept concept is totally useless, unless concepts are getting in the way. Concepts can only seem to get in the way, when one conceptualizes a truth which can be obscured. With no obscuration conceived, no need for an anti-concept concept. > It's when we become absolutely disgusted > with understanding, thinking and words that an opening > could appear. If an opening depends on becoming disgusted with words, then it is a relative experience of an opening, that depended on becoming disgusted. And nothing wrong with such an experience at all. > What is, is beyond meaning. Looking for > meaning is chasing your tail. Transcendent meaning isn't there when you look for it. It is who you are prior to becoming a looker, or seeing something, or becoming disgusted with something you've seen. > > IT can be > > > experienced, Dan, it can't not be known, but it > > can be > > > experienced. > > > > If you know it is an experience, then that is known. > > > Truly unknown has no experience to it -- is neither > > passing nor staying the same. > > Pete: No, you misunderstood. I say it can't be known, > in the sense it can't be understood. It comes via a > new sense, a third eye, a chakra, or whatever you want > to call it, names are irrelevant. Anything that comes, goes. If there is a sensing, then that is conditional. It comes to the > brain > and the brain is baffled by its complete newness and > simplicity. It can't be recreated, as memory recreates > sadness or joy. It's new every time, we sense is there > all the time, we sense we always have been and will be > it, but it can't be owned as we own this pitiful, fake > self called pete, or dan. Nicely stated, very Krishnamurti, and I agree. Yet, the brain is just a lump of flesh which will decay. The sense of newness is wonderful, yet it depends on a sense of something old. What impinges on the brain, what affects the brain is transitory, as the brain is transitory, as new and old are in relation. The brain is an object, as are the sensations registered there. What is beyond subject and object? > > You might not know you are experiencing > > > it, but you can't experience nothing else. > > > > I agree. > > > > There is no experience that is not it. > > > > There couldn't be anything that is something other. > > > > But experience is based on contrast, change, > > moments changing into other moments. > > > > When there is no other moment into which this moment > > can change, where is the experience? > > > > > Swallow the whole manifestation in one gulp. > > > > Exactly -- only there's no swallower, do > > nothing into which it can be gulped. > > > Pete: Exactly. As long as there is a hungry mouth > (self)there won't be any Big Gulp> > > > You take in totality only by being it, > > and by being it, there is no sense > > " I am totality. " It isn't an experience, > > never has been -- and has never been > > commented upon. > > Pete: Well, Dan, maybe we are using the word > experience in different ways. There is no good word > for it. Realization might be better, but not much. > Commented it has been. Described? It can't be done. > Poetry comes close, but no cigar. Yes. One perhaps could say it is experiential, and it is not experienced. Description requires time passing, and it requires a distance for the one who hears the description to encounter and make sense of the description. There are countless, myriads of descriptions, ranging from the obvious to the profound, from the superficial to the deep -- but so what? What is not describable remains undescribed. > Pete: We have to fight the believe in concepts with > concepts. Try to answer me without using concepts. I > like staring at a blank screen. A blank screen is a concept. Any experience of which you are aware is a concept. Fighting the belief in concepts with concepts certainly must reach a limit. Beyond that limit, there is no fight. The conceptual is the nonconceptual, just as form is emptiness. But to take the nonceptual as concept might be unnecessarily limiting. Perhaps one could say: the conceptual is the nonconceptual, the nonconceptual is the nonconceptual, and the nonconceptual is not the conceptual. > > The unknown already always is the case. > > > > Like silence is felt. like complete > > > darkness is seem. > > > > It's not like anything. > > Pete:I didn't say it was like those things. I say an > absence, a void can make an impression on the brain. That's an interesting way of putting it. Of course, if it's making an impression on something, it's not void. But I know what you mean, it's like saying " a palpable silence. " > > You need to stop all this > > > conceptual tail chasing. > > > > Your advice here is as conceptual > > as anything else, and is being > > delivered by one conceptual entity > > to another. > > Pete: Right. Those are the toys we have. If we want > to play we have to use them. Very true. > I must confess I like playing with you. Although, > I try to kick your phantom butt once in a while. Yes, this time you be Charlie Brown, and I'll be Lucy holding the football. > Good response, thanks, You're a good man, Pete Brown. Fun playing football with ya! -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2002 Report Share Posted September 27, 2002 --- dan330033 <dan330033 wrote: > Hi Pete -- > > > Pete:Of course Dan, there is no experience, only > > experiences. > > Well, there is this sensation of an immediate > experience. > At the same time, it isn't being experienced. > > Go figure -- such is the wonder and imminent danger > of nonduality :-) Pete: I figured it out! You are writing bullshit. A sensation is an awareness of bodily stimulus. An experience is direct observation. So how can there be unnoticed observation or awareness? You are going in circles trying to prove there is no witness, which hardly anyone here disagrees with. > With nothing to be understood, the need for > understanding anything drops -- including > even this: " there is > no need to understand that there is nothing > to be understood ... " Pete:Once the nail is out, the hammer is dropped. To say you don't need the hammer before the nail is out is nonsense. And you are not preaching paralysis, are you? > > The only reason > > I write anything is to let people know that words, > > thoughts, concepts are useless when it comes to > > realizing. > > The concept that concepts are useless, is > an anti-concept concept. The anti-concept concept > is totally useless, unless concepts are getting > in the way. Concepts can only seem to get in the > way, when one conceptualizes a truth which can > be obscured. With no obscuration conceived, > no need for an anti-concept concept. Pete: Sameol, once the believe in concepts is dropped, no anti-concepts required. > > > > IT can be > > > > experienced, Dan, it can't not be known, but > it > > > can be > > > > experienced. > > > > > > If you know it is an experience, then that is > known. > > > > > Truly unknown has no experience to it -- is > neither > > > passing nor staying the same. > > > > Pete: No, you misunderstood. I say it can't be > known, > > in the sense it can't be understood. It comes via > a > > new sense, a third eye, a chakra, or whatever you > want > > to call it, names are irrelevant. > > Anything that comes, goes. > > If there is a sensing, then that is conditional. Pete: Everything comes and goes, Dan. Nothing is eternal. Thank you impermanence! > > Yet, the brain is just a lump of flesh which will > decay. Pete:So what? Do you fancy Dan is something other than orchestrated electrical impulses in that brain? > The sense of newness is wonderful, yet it depends > on a sense of something old. Pete: So what? Everything depends on everything else for their existence. > What impinges on the brain, what affects > the brain is transitory, as the brain > is transitory, as new and old are in relation. > > The brain is an object, as are the sensations > registered there. Pete: You're only aware of what your brain let you see. You are a phantom prisoner inside your brain. The universe, or Absolute if you prefer, fashioned your brain as a mirror. ( Just a metaphor) I know you're trying your best to be a good mirror. I give you an A for effort Pete > > === message truncated === New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2002 Report Share Posted September 27, 2002 Hi Pete -- > > > Pete:Of course Dan, there is no experience, only > > > experiences. > > > > Well, there is this sensation of an immediate > > experience. > > > > At the same time, it isn't being experienced. > > > > Go figure -- such is the wonder and imminent danger > > of nonduality :-) > > > Pete: I figured it out! You are writing bullshit. No, I'm not. You need to fill in the blanks, nonverbally, which apparently you're not. To fill it in verbally, which is less inclusive -- the experience is temporarily real-seeming. It isn't experienced, because it passes without going anywhere. > A sensation is an awareness of bodily stimulus. An > experience is direct observation. So how can there be > unnoticed observation or awareness? What is this referring to? You're bringing in your own concepts, and then negating these -- as if it's a response to what I said. > You are going > in circles trying to prove there is no witness, which > hardly anyone here disagrees with. No, Pete -- I'm not trying to prove something. That is your inference. I am speaking directly from experience which isn't being experienced -- that is, it's not being placed somewhere for future reference. There is no going in circles here -- but I can't account for what you're doing, nor can I account for what you do with what I write. > > With nothing to be understood, the need for > > understanding anything drops -- including > > even this: " there is > > no need to understand that there is nothing > > to be understood ... " > > Pete:Once the nail is out, the hammer is dropped. To > say you > don't need the hammer before the nail is out is > nonsense. And you are not preaching paralysis, are > you? No, I was responding to what you said, which you snipped. You take the remark out of context, and then treat it as if it's preaching something. You're the one going in circles my friend, by bringing in your own concepts and then negating them and claiming to be responding to me and what I say. I didn't say you don't need the hammer before the nail is out, nor anythng about paralysis -- but this is what you are disputing. You make it sound like you're conversing with me, but you're not -- you're involved in your own inner dialogue, contesting your own ideas. > > > The only reason > > > I write anything is to let people know that words, > > > thoughts, concepts are useless when it comes to > > > realizing. > > > > The concept that concepts are useless, is > > an anti-concept concept. The anti-concept concept > > is totally useless, unless concepts are getting > > in the way. Concepts can only seem to get in the > > way, when one conceptualizes a truth which can > > be obscured. With no obscuration conceived, > > no need for an anti-concept concept. > > Pete: Sameol, once the believe in concepts is > dropped, no anti-concepts required. Yes, so why is it that you're investing in concepts which are anti-concepts, if you've dropped it? > > > > IT can be > > > > > experienced, Dan, it can't not be known, but > > it > > > > can be > > > > > experienced. > > > > > > > > If you know it is an experience, then that is > > known. > > > > > > > Truly unknown has no experience to it -- is > > neither > > > > passing nor staying the same. > > > > > > Pete: No, you misunderstood. I say it can't be > > known, > > > in the sense it can't be understood. It comes via > > a > > > new sense, a third eye, a chakra, or whatever you > > want > > > to call it, names are irrelevant. > > > > Anything that comes, goes. > > > > If there is a sensing, then that is conditional. > > > Pete: Everything comes and goes, Dan. Nothing is > eternal. Thank you impermanence! What allows you to say " everything comes and goes " ? Coming and going can only be recognized as such in comparison with not-coming, not-going. > > Yet, the brain is just a lump of flesh which will > > decay. > > Pete:So what? Do you fancy Dan is something other than > orchestrated electrical impulses in that brain? If you give the name " Dan " to something you observe and call a " brain, " then of course " Dan " won't be anything more than that " brain. " How silly. You are doing the naming, you are putting the constructs together, and then you are arriving at the result of how you conceptualized it. > > The sense of newness is wonderful, yet it depends > > on a sense of something old. > > Pete: So what? Everything depends on everything else > for their existence. Right. So, the sense of newness is nothing special, not remarkable at all. > > What impinges on the brain, what affects > > the brain is transitory, as the brain > > is transitory, as new and old are in relation. > > > > The brain is an object, as are the sensations > > registered there. > > Pete: You're only aware of what your brain let you > see. You are a phantom prisoner inside your brain. This is where you are off the mark, in my book, Pete. There is no one in the brain. The brain is a sense object, and isn't the seat of any center of consciousness. The brain is only a construct, and has no more reality than any other construct. > The universe, or Absolute if you prefer, fashioned > your > brain as a mirror. ( Just a metaphor) I know you're > trying your best to be a good mirror. As I'm sure are you. And the mirror has nothing to do with the brain. The brain is only a reflection appearing as such with all the other reflections that intertwine. It isn't the seat of anything, nor is it the basis for anything. It is, of course, a component of a living breathing body-mind, which is intertwined with all kinds of other constructs, like air, earth, and light. > I give you an A for effort Pete, you're not in a position to give grades, except in your own mind :-) And what you are grading are constructs of that mind. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2002 Report Share Posted September 28, 2002 > No, Pete -- I'm not trying to prove something. > That is your inference. > I am speaking directly from experience which > isn't being experienced -- that is, it's > not being placed somewhere for future reference. Pete: How can you speak of an experience which is not being experienced. To speak of something you need the memory of it. That's why people with advance alzheimers can't speak of anything? That is just nonsense. > You're the one going in circles my friend, by > bringing > in your own concepts and then negating them and > claiming > to be responding to me and what I say. I didn't > say you don't need the hammer before the nail is > out, > nor anything about paralysis -- but this is what > you > are disputing. You make it sound like you're > conversing with me, but you're not -- you're > involved in your own inner dialogue, contesting > your own ideas. Pete:))) Of course, is there anyone else to talk to? That would be duality, would it not? This after all, is an Advaita list. > > Yes, so why is it that you're investing in concepts > which are anti-concepts, if you've dropped it? Pete: For the sake of others. There are members of this list that are new to this and can't fill in the blanks. Even I have trouble fill in your huge blanks. If we were sitting across from each other, I'm sure neither of us would misinterpreted anything. > > Pete: Everything comes and goes, Dan. Nothing is > > eternal. Thank you impermanence! > > > What allows you to say " everything comes and goes " ? > Coming and going can only be recognized as such > in comparison with not-coming, not-going. Pete: What allows me is what allows you. Certainty. Which certainty is right? We'll never now. > > > Yet, the brain is just a lump of flesh which > will > > > decay. > > > > Pete:So what? Do you fancy Dan is something other > than > > orchestrated electrical impulses in that brain? > > If you give the name " Dan " to something you observe > and call a " brain, " then of course " Dan " won't > be anything more than that " brain. " > > How silly. You are doing the naming, you are > putting > the constructs together, and then you are arriving > at the result of how you conceptualized it. Pete: Yes, conceptualizing about reality is silly, and your conceptualizing is not exempted. > > > The sense of newness is wonderful, yet it > depends > > > on a sense of something old. > > > > Pete: So what? Everything depends on everything > else > > for their existence. > > Right. > > So, the sense of newness is nothing special, > not remarkable at all. > > > > What impinges on the brain, what affects > > > the brain is transitory, as the brain > > > is transitory, as new and old are in relation. > > > > > > The brain is an object, as are the sensations > > > registered there. > > > > Pete: You're only aware of what your brain let you > > see. You are a phantom prisoner inside your brain. > > > This is where you are off the mark, in my book, > Pete. > > There is no one in the brain. Pete:I said phantom, didn't I? Come and see me after you die, or sooner if you can. Will have a good laugh then. Pete New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2002 Report Share Posted September 29, 2002 Nisargadatta, pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > > No, Pete -- I'm not trying to prove something. > > That is your inference. > > I am speaking directly from experience which > > isn't being experienced -- that is, it's > > not being placed somewhere for future reference. > > Pete: How can you speak of an experience which is not > being experienced. To speak of something you need the > memory of it. That's why people with advance > alzheimers can't speak of anything? That is just > nonsense. D: Yes, quite so. Alzheimer's is an inability to consult memory. Realization doesn't prevent the use of memory, but involves discrimination. Discrimination is knowing that a memory is an image, and the truth that one is, is not in an image. One speaks from the truth that is not an image, which is not being experienced in the sense of going into memory. > > You're the one going in circles my friend, by > > bringing > > in your own concepts and then negating them and > > claiming > > to be responding to me and what I say. I didn't > > say you don't need the hammer before the nail is > > out, > > nor anything about paralysis -- but this is what > > you > > are disputing. You make it sound like you're > > conversing with me, but you're not -- you're > > involved in your own inner dialogue, contesting > > your own ideas. > > Pete:))) Of course, is there anyone else to talk to? > That would be duality, would it not? This after all, > is an Advaita list. D: Nonduality is not against duality, but subsumes (includes) all previously considered to be duality. Nonduality is clarity that the one you are talking to, and the one who is talking, are not-two. The belief that one's mind is real, and someone else's mind is not, is dualistic, placing affirmation of self against negation of another. > > Yes, so why is it that you're investing in concepts > > which are anti-concepts, if you've dropped it? > > Pete: For the sake of others. There are members of > this list that are new to this and can't fill in the > blanks. Even I have trouble fill in your huge blanks. > If we were sitting across from each other, I'm sure > neither of us would misinterpreted anything. D: Sounds good to me. > > > > Pete: Everything comes and goes, Dan. Nothing is > > > eternal. Thank you impermanence! > > > > > > What allows you to say " everything comes and goes " ? > > Coming and going can only be recognized as such > > in comparison with not-coming, not-going. > > Pete: What allows me is what allows you. Certainty. > Which certainty is right? We'll never now. D: There is only uncertainty in everything that manifests. The only certainty is that the manifest and unmanifest aren't two. > > > > Yet, the brain is just a lump of flesh which > > will > > > > decay. > > > > > > Pete:So what? Do you fancy Dan is something other > > than > > > orchestrated electrical impulses in that brain? > > > > If you give the name " Dan " to something you observe > > and call a " brain, " then of course " Dan " won't > > be anything more than that " brain. " > > > > How silly. You are doing the naming, you are > > putting > > the constructs together, and then you are arriving > > at the result of how you conceptualized it. > > Pete: Yes, conceptualizing about reality is silly, > and your conceptualizing is not exempted. My conceptualization isn't of reality. It can't possibly get anywhere, prove anything, or do anything more than provide a chance for the mind to lose any sense of itself as providing reality. snip > Come and see me after you die, or sooner if you can. > Will have a good laugh then. It's very dark. Plus, my Alzheimer's seems to be getting worse. Is that you out there? Who are you? Laughing, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2002 Report Share Posted September 29, 2002 > > Who are you? Right now? Danpete ))) Later? Who knows. ~ New DSL Internet Access from SBC & http://sbc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.