Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 In a message dated 3/4/2006 6:46:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, lastrain writes: > > " Facts " exist only in thought. > > toombaru L.E: Well Len, how are you going to deal with his response? He seems to be saying there is no extenal exterior world where facts can exist. On the one hand a tree can be said to exist external to you, but it can only be known through internal experience which is thinking of a sort. Perhaps he sees perception as a kind of thinking and in that sense, there is no external world of " fact. " Yet another person may say there is a tree when there is no tree and you could respond 'there is no tree, it is not a fact. " In that sense, there is no tree that can be a fact, so you could say, " there is no tree, so there is not a fact. " But you could also say, " although is not a fact that there is a tree, it is a fact that someone said there was a tree although there really isn't and that is a fact. " Toom might still insist that there is no fact, and that the external world doesn't exist as a dream doesn't really exist, and that facts are a form of thinking and perception is a form of thinking that happens within, and that in the end, there is only a process with no thinker and that everything that exists is only an imaginary dream. If all of this is a fact, what will you do with this information/ And isn't anything you can respond just more thinking that is not real and all part of a dream or imaginary reality? How do you meet the argument that there is no external world in which fact can exist? Larry Epston www.epston.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 In a message dated 3/4/2006 1:33:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, lissbon2002 writes: > Oh, this is just too much thinking for my simple brain .-) > > Len > L.E: We all have our limitations. Tsk, tsk. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 How do you meet the argument that > there is no external world in which fact can exist? > > Larry Epston > www.epston.com > Factor out the 'you' in the question. ............and what happens? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 Nisargadatta , epston wrote: > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 6:46:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, > lastrain writes: > > > > > " Facts " exist only in thought. > > > > toombaru > > L.E: Well Len, how are you going to deal with his response? He seems to be > saying there is no extenal exterior world where facts can exist. On the one > hand a tree can be said to exist external to you, but it can only be known > through internal experience which is thinking of a sort. Perhaps he sees > perception as a kind of thinking and in that sense, there is no external world of > " fact. " > Yet another person may say there is a tree when there is no tree and you > could respond 'there is no tree, it is not a fact. " In that sense, there is no > tree that can be a fact, so you could say, " there is no tree, so there is not a > fact. " But you could also say, " although is not a fact that there is a tree, > it is a fact that someone said there was a tree although there really isn't > and that is a fact. " > Toom might still insist that there is no fact, and that the external world > doesn't exist as a dream doesn't really exist, and that facts are a form of > thinking and perception is a form of thinking that happens within, and that in the > end, there is only a process with no thinker and that everything that exists > is only an imaginary dream. > If all of this is a fact, what will you do with this information/ > And isn't anything you can respond just more thinking that is not real and > all part of a dream or imaginary reality? How do you meet the argument that > there is no external world in which fact can exist? > > Larry Epston > www.epston.com Oh, this is just too much thinking for my simple brain .-) Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 In a message dated 3/4/2006 4:26:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, lastrain writes: > Oh, this is just too much thinking for my simple brain .-) > >>> > >>>Len > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >>The brain does not think. > >> > >> > >> > >>toombaru > > > > > > > >That´s why ;-) > > > >Len > > > L. E: Then who is calling your brain simple? T. Nobody. No brain. Nothing. L.E: Who said that? L. Nobody. There's no one here. L.E: So much noise for an empty room. T: There is no room. There is no noise. L. I agree. Or rather, agree. (shouldn't use the I ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 6:46:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > " Facts " exist only in thought. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > L.E: Well Len, how are you going to deal with his response? He > seems to be > > saying there is no extenal exterior world where facts can exist. > On the one > > hand a tree can be said to exist external to you, but it can only > be known > > through internal experience which is thinking of a sort. Perhaps > he sees > > perception as a kind of thinking and in that sense, there is no > external world of > > " fact. " > > Yet another person may say there is a tree when there is no tree > and you > > could respond 'there is no tree, it is not a fact. " In that > sense, there is no > > tree that can be a fact, so you could say, " there is no tree, so > there is not a > > fact. " But you could also say, " although is not a fact that > there is a tree, > > it is a fact that someone said there was a tree although there > really isn't > > and that is a fact. " > > Toom might still insist that there is no fact, and that the > external world > > doesn't exist as a dream doesn't really exist, and that facts are > a form of > > thinking and perception is a form of thinking that happens within, > and that in the > > end, there is only a process with no thinker and that everything > that exists > > is only an imaginary dream. > > If all of this is a fact, what will you do with this information/ > > And isn't anything you can respond just more thinking that is not > real and > > all part of a dream or imaginary reality? How do you meet the > argument that > > there is no external world in which fact can exist? > > > > Larry Epston > > www.epston.com > > > Oh, this is just too much thinking for my simple brain .-) > > Len > The brain does not think. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 6:46:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > " Facts " exist only in thought. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > L.E: Well Len, how are you going to deal with his response? He > > seems to be > > > saying there is no extenal exterior world where facts can exist. > > On the one > > > hand a tree can be said to exist external to you, but it can only > > be known > > > through internal experience which is thinking of a sort. Perhaps > > he sees > > > perception as a kind of thinking and in that sense, there is no > > external world of > > > " fact. " > > > Yet another person may say there is a tree when there is no tree > > and you > > > could respond 'there is no tree, it is not a fact. " In that > > sense, there is no > > > tree that can be a fact, so you could say, " there is no tree, so > > there is not a > > > fact. " But you could also say, " although is not a fact that > > there is a tree, > > > it is a fact that someone said there was a tree although there > > really isn't > > > and that is a fact. " > > > Toom might still insist that there is no fact, and that the > > external world > > > doesn't exist as a dream doesn't really exist, and that facts are > > a form of > > > thinking and perception is a form of thinking that happens within, > > and that in the > > > end, there is only a process with no thinker and that everything > > that exists > > > is only an imaginary dream. > > > If all of this is a fact, what will you do with this information/ > > > And isn't anything you can respond just more thinking that is not > > real and > > > all part of a dream or imaginary reality? How do you meet the > > argument that > > > there is no external world in which fact can exist? > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > www.epston.com > > > > > > Oh, this is just too much thinking for my simple brain .-) > > > > Len > > > > > > The brain does not think. > > > > toombaru That´s why ;-) Len Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 6:46:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Facts " exist only in thought. > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > L.E: Well Len, how are you going to deal with his response? > He > > > seems to be > > > > saying there is no extenal exterior world where facts can > exist. > > > On the one > > > > hand a tree can be said to exist external to you, but it can > only > > > be known > > > > through internal experience which is thinking of a sort. > Perhaps > > > he sees > > > > perception as a kind of thinking and in that sense, there is > no > > > external world of > > > > " fact. " > > > > Yet another person may say there is a tree when there is no > tree > > > and you > > > > could respond 'there is no tree, it is not a fact. " In that > > > sense, there is no > > > > tree that can be a fact, so you could say, " there is no tree, > so > > > there is not a > > > > fact. " But you could also say, " although is not a fact that > > > there is a tree, > > > > it is a fact that someone said there was a tree although there > > > really isn't > > > > and that is a fact. " > > > > Toom might still insist that there is no fact, and that the > > > external world > > > > doesn't exist as a dream doesn't really exist, and that facts > are > > > a form of > > > > thinking and perception is a form of thinking that happens > within, > > > and that in the > > > > end, there is only a process with no thinker and that > everything > > > that exists > > > > is only an imaginary dream. > > > > If all of this is a fact, what will you do with this > information/ > > > > And isn't anything you can respond just more thinking that is > not > > > real and > > > > all part of a dream or imaginary reality? How do you meet the > > > argument that > > > > there is no external world in which fact can exist? > > > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > www.epston.com > > > > > > > > > Oh, this is just too much thinking for my simple brain .-) > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > The brain does not think. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > That´s why ;-) > > Len > Cuteness aside............The brain is merely the machinery through which the thought stream flows out into the dream. The brain does not know what the next thought will be..........because it is not the thinker. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , epston@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 6:46:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > > lastrain@ writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " Facts " exist only in thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > > > L.E: Well Len, how are you going to deal with his response? > > He > > > > seems to be > > > > > saying there is no extenal exterior world where facts can > > exist. > > > > On the one > > > > > hand a tree can be said to exist external to you, but it can > > only > > > > be known > > > > > through internal experience which is thinking of a sort. > > Perhaps > > > > he sees > > > > > perception as a kind of thinking and in that sense, there is > > no > > > > external world of > > > > > " fact. " > > > > > Yet another person may say there is a tree when there is no > > tree > > > > and you > > > > > could respond 'there is no tree, it is not a fact. " In that > > > > sense, there is no > > > > > tree that can be a fact, so you could say, " there is no tree, > > so > > > > there is not a > > > > > fact. " But you could also say, " although is not a fact that > > > > there is a tree, > > > > > it is a fact that someone said there was a tree although there > > > > really isn't > > > > > and that is a fact. " > > > > > Toom might still insist that there is no fact, and that the > > > > external world > > > > > doesn't exist as a dream doesn't really exist, and that facts > > are > > > > a form of > > > > > thinking and perception is a form of thinking that happens > > within, > > > > and that in the > > > > > end, there is only a process with no thinker and that > > everything > > > > that exists > > > > > is only an imaginary dream. > > > > > If all of this is a fact, what will you do with this > > information/ > > > > > And isn't anything you can respond just more thinking that is > > not > > > > real and > > > > > all part of a dream or imaginary reality? How do you meet the > > > > argument that > > > > > there is no external world in which fact can exist? > > > > > > > > > > Larry Epston > > > > > www.epston.com > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, this is just too much thinking for my simple brain .-) > > > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The brain does not think. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > > > That´s why ;-) > > > > Len > > > > > Cuteness aside............The brain is merely the machinery through which the thought > stream flows out into the dream. > > The brain does not know what the next thought will be..........because it is not the thinker. > > > toombaru The thinker doesn´t know what the next thought will be either, because it´s a thought :-) Len 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.