Guest guest Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > Tim G. > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 11:09 PM > > > > > > > Movement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a movement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > called 'change', called 'awareness', > > > > > > > > > > > > > > called 'freedom' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that is ever new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ever surprising, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ever in motion, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yet ever still. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ever free of any static " I " , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > beyond time, yet not excluding time. > > > > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness is a change??? > > > > > > > Is there something that never changes with time? A qualitiless presence that > > > > > > > never changes and everyone can " know " it? > > > > > > > Is there seeing always only through those (these) eyes? > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness only appears to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > It only changes in comparison. > > > > > > > > > > > > With no comparison, it isn't changing. > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, it is not remaining the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constancy is nondurational awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content. No content -> no consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > What we experience as consciousness is a constant flux of changing contents. > > > > > > > > > > Contents which do not change won't get conscious. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > I understand, Werner. > > > > > > > > Yet, I wonder: why do you refer to 'contents'? > > > > > > > > Contents of what? > > > > > > > > > Very simple, Dan, > > > > > > Sensory input is processed in the brain by associating and comparing it with previous or old data stroed in memory. The result is made conscious by activating a network of neurons. The firing of those neurons we experienc as consciousness. Btw, that is why consciousness is total subjective. > > > > > > Nowadays neurology does know which parts of the brain are responisble for sound, sensations, visions, emotions etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If consciousness is its contents, then xiconsciousness is not a container. > > > > > > > > > Yes, consciousness is no conatainer and therefore consciousness as such does not exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, events aren't contents. > > > > > > > > > Not quite, Alan, only events which have passed the assoiating an comparing processes of the brain become contents. > > > > > > Werner > > > > How did I change from Dan to Alan? > > > > Is that a glitch in consciousness? > > > Sorry Dan, > > My thoughts were somewhere else when replying to you. > > > > > > Your explanation doesn't hold water, Werner. y > > > > > I didn't expect that you were able to let go your lovely 'awareness' straw, Dan. > > Nevertheless I cannot discuss 'awareness' with you because in German that word does not exist. We only have the word consciousness but not awareness. One day if you are ready no longer to ride that 'awareness' horse we can go on dicsussing consciousness. > > Werner You're apparently missing what I consider the key issue here, so kindly allow me to make the same point without using the word or concept " awareness. " I've abandoned any concept as an anchor for my sense of reality, of what is so, including the concept " awareness. " Indeed, I've abandoned the concept that I've abandoned concepts. ;-) Your explanation is based on things, neurons, that you are taking for granted as having an independent existence. Whether you regard them as independent of awareness or consciousness, it doesn't matter which word you want to use. Either way, the theory is self-contradictory. That theory requires the belief in independently existing things that produce consciousness - and you have no way to be able to ascertain anything about things existing outside of your consciousness. My point stands. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > Tim G. > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta > > > > > > > > Tuesday, August 11, 2009 11:09 PM > > > > > > > > Movement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a movement > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > called 'change', called 'awareness', > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > called 'freedom' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that is ever new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ever surprising, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ever in motion, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yet ever still. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ever free of any static " I " , > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > beyond time, yet not excluding time. > > > > > > > > -tim- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness is a change??? > > > > > > > > Is there something that never changes with time? A qualitiless presence that > > > > > > > > never changes and everyone can " know " it? > > > > > > > > Is there seeing always only through those (these) eyes? > > > > > > > > -geo- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Awareness only appears to change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It only changes in comparison. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With no comparison, it isn't changing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, it is not remaining the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Constancy is nondurational awareness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consciousness is its content. No content -> no consciousness. > > > > > > > > > > > > What we experience as consciousness is a constant flux of changing contents. > > > > > > > > > > > > Contents which do not change won't get conscious. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > I understand, Werner. > > > > > > > > > > Yet, I wonder: why do you refer to 'contents'? > > > > > > > > > > Contents of what? > > > > > > > > > > > > Very simple, Dan, > > > > > > > > Sensory input is processed in the brain by associating and comparing it with previous or old data stroed in memory. The result is made conscious by activating a network of neurons. The firing of those neurons we experienc as consciousness. Btw, that is why consciousness is total subjective. > > > > > > > > Nowadays neurology does know which parts of the brain are responisble for sound, sensations, visions, emotions etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If consciousness is its contents, then xiconsciousness is not a container. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, consciousness is no conatainer and therefore consciousness as such does not exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, events aren't contents. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not quite, Alan, only events which have passed the assoiating an comparing processes of the brain become contents. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > How did I change from Dan to Alan? > > > > > > Is that a glitch in consciousness? > > > > > > Sorry Dan, > > > > My thoughts were somewhere else when replying to you. > > > > > > > > > > Your explanation doesn't hold water, Werner. y > > > > > > > > > I didn't expect that you were able to let go your lovely 'awareness' straw, Dan. > > > > Nevertheless I cannot discuss 'awareness' with you because in German that word does not exist. We only have the word consciousness but not awareness. One day if you are ready no longer to ride that 'awareness' horse we can go on dicsussing consciousness. > > > > Werner > > You're apparently missing what I consider the key issue here, so kindly allow me to make the same point without using the word or concept " awareness. " > > I've abandoned any concept as an anchor for my sense of reality, of what is so, including the concept " awareness. " Indeed, I've abandoned the concept that I've abandoned concepts. ;-) > > Your explanation is based on things, neurons, that you are taking for granted as having an independent existence. > > Whether you regard them as independent of awareness or consciousness, it doesn't matter which word you want to use. > > Either way, the theory is self-contradictory. > > That theory requires the belief in independently existing things that produce consciousness - and you have no way to be able to ascertain anything about things existing outside of your consciousness. Ok Dan, as long as you take seat in your non-dual philosoper's chair I won't follow you. I myself prefer science, in this case neuroscience which I find much more satisfying regarding consciousness. Advaita offers a confortable niche for people loving the comfort of final answers. I don't mind, enjoy your non-dual cigar. Werner > > My point stands. > > - D - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Ok Dan, > > as long as you take seat in your non-dual philosoper's chair I won't follow you. I myself prefer science, in this case neuroscience which I find much more satisfying regarding consciousness. Advaita offers a confortable niche for people loving the comfort of final answers. I don't mind, enjoy your non-dual cigar. > > > > Werner Werner - What you are offering is a mental image that has nothing to do with who I am. I have no final answer, nor do I need one. I'm not looking for one. I think it was Krishnamurti who said that when a person relates to the image in his mind of another, he is not relating, he is not paying attention, he is complacent. When you say your rely on neuroscience to tell you about consciousness, it has a very religious sound. It is very much like saying one relies on the Bible to tell him what is so. Have you explored consciousness directly, without relying on an authority? Without relying on borrowed concepts from a book, or from another? What is the direct truth of being aware? wissentlich? Speak, Werner. Directly. Enough complacency and cigars! - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > Ok Dan, > > > > as long as you take seat in your non-dual philosoper's chair I won't follow you. I myself prefer science, in this case neuroscience which I find much more satisfying regarding consciousness. Advaita offers a confortable niche for people loving the comfort of final answers. I don't mind, enjoy your non-dual cigar. > > > > > > > > Werner > > Werner - > > What you are offering is a mental image that has nothing to do with > who I am. I have no final answer, nor do I need one. I'm not > looking for one. " Sweet dreams are made of this... Who am I to disagree... I've traveled the world and the seven seas... Everybody's looking for something... " -- The Eurythmics Well, maybe not everybody ;-). Most, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > Ok Dan, > > > > as long as you take seat in your non-dual philosoper's chair I won't follow you. I myself prefer science, in this case neuroscience which I find much more satisfying regarding consciousness. Advaita offers a confortable niche for people loving the comfort of final answers. I don't mind, enjoy your non-dual cigar. > > > > > > > > Werner > > Werner - > > What you are offering is a mental image that has nothing to do with who I am. I have no final answer, nor do I need one. I'm not looking for one. > > I think it was Krishnamurti who said that when a person relates to the image in his mind of another, he is not relating, he is not paying attention, he is complacent. > > When you say your rely on neuroscience to tell you about consciousness, it has a very religious sound. It is very much like saying one relies on the Bible to tell him what is so. > > Have you explored consciousness directly, without relying on an authority? Without relying on borrowed concepts from a book, or from another? > > What is the direct truth of being aware? > > wissentlich? > > Speak, Werner. > > Directly. > > Enough complacency and cigars! > > - D - > Dan, I am into these things since almost 5o years. I have heard and read all those arguments a thousand times before etc. Especially the word " truth " almost lets me vomit, so often heard it uttered by incarnations of arrogance and pride .... argh Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > I am into these things since almost 5o years. I have heard and read > all those arguments a thousand times before etc. Why not 'get out of it', then? It's just going around in circles. Abandon it. Really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > I am into these things since almost 5o years. I have heard and read > > all those arguments a thousand times before etc. > > Why not 'get out of it', then? > > It's just going around in circles. > > Abandon it. Really. > At this very moment it is 14 minutes past midnight. In front of the house on the cherry tree a magpie loudly is scolding. It seems the moonlight is bright enough to reveal a cat to that bird's eyes and let it warn and scold that noisy. That's what just is going on here, Tim. Werner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Ok Dan, > > > > > > as long as you take seat in your non-dual philosoper's chair I won't follow you. I myself prefer science, in this case neuroscience which I find much more satisfying regarding consciousness. Advaita offers a confortable niche for people loving the comfort of final answers. I don't mind, enjoy your non-dual cigar. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > Werner - > > > > What you are offering is a mental image that has nothing to do with who I am. I have no final answer, nor do I need one. I'm not looking for one. > > > > I think it was Krishnamurti who said that when a person relates to the image in his mind of another, he is not relating, he is not paying attention, he is complacent. > > > > When you say your rely on neuroscience to tell you about consciousness, it has a very religious sound. It is very much like saying one relies on the Bible to tell him what is so. > > > > Have you explored consciousness directly, without relying on an authority? Without relying on borrowed concepts from a book, or from another? > > > > What is the direct truth of being aware? > > > > wissentlich? > > > > Speak, Werner. > > > > Directly. > > > > Enough complacency and cigars! > > > > - D - > > > > > Dan, > > I am into these things since almost 5o years. I have heard and read all those arguments a thousand times before etc. Especially the word " truth " almost lets me vomit, so often heard it uttered by incarnations of arrogance and pride .... argh > > Werner > That's why I always call it the troof. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Ok Dan, > > > > > > as long as you take seat in your non-dual philosoper's chair I won't follow you. I myself prefer science, in this case neuroscience which I find much more satisfying regarding consciousness. Advaita offers a confortable niche for people loving the comfort of final answers. I don't mind, enjoy your non-dual cigar. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > Werner - > > > > What you are offering is a mental image that has nothing to do with who I am. I have no final answer, nor do I need one. I'm not looking for one. > > > > I think it was Krishnamurti who said that when a person relates to the image in his mind of another, he is not relating, he is not paying attention, he is complacent. > > > > When you say your rely on neuroscience to tell you about consciousness, it has a very religious sound. It is very much like saying one relies on the Bible to tell him what is so. > > > > Have you explored consciousness directly, without relying on an authority? Without relying on borrowed concepts from a book, or from another? > > > > What is the direct truth of being aware? > > > > wissentlich? > > > > Speak, Werner. > > > > Directly. > > > > Enough complacency and cigars! > > > > - D - > > > > > Dan, > > I am into these things since almost 5o years. I have heard and read all those arguments a thousand times before etc. Especially the word " truth " almost lets me vomit, so often heard it uttered by incarnations of arrogance and pride .... argh > > Werner So, be the vomiting, Werner. That, at least, is direct. - Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Ok Dan, > > > > > > > > as long as you take seat in your non-dual philosoper's chair I won't follow you. I myself prefer science, in this case neuroscience which I find much more satisfying regarding consciousness. Advaita offers a confortable niche for people loving the comfort of final answers. I don't mind, enjoy your non-dual cigar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > Werner - > > > > > > What you are offering is a mental image that has nothing to do with who I am. I have no final answer, nor do I need one. I'm not looking for one. > > > > > > I think it was Krishnamurti who said that when a person relates to the image in his mind of another, he is not relating, he is not paying attention, he is complacent. > > > > > > When you say your rely on neuroscience to tell you about consciousness, it has a very religious sound. It is very much like saying one relies on the Bible to tell him what is so. > > > > > > Have you explored consciousness directly, without relying on an authority? Without relying on borrowed concepts from a book, or from another? > > > > > > What is the direct truth of being aware? > > > > > > wissentlich? > > > > > > Speak, Werner. > > > > > > Directly. > > > > > > Enough complacency and cigars! > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > I am into these things since almost 5o years. I have heard and read all those arguments a thousand times before etc. Especially the word " truth " almost lets me vomit, so often heard it uttered by incarnations of arrogance and pride ..... argh > > > > Werner > That's why I always call it the troof. > > > > toombaru That's funny. I always called it the tralph. - D - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok Dan, > > > > > > > > > > as long as you take seat in your non-dual philosoper's chair I won't follow you. I myself prefer science, in this case neuroscience which I find much more satisfying regarding consciousness. Advaita offers a confortable niche for people loving the comfort of final answers. I don't mind, enjoy your non-dual cigar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > Werner - > > > > > > > > What you are offering is a mental image that has nothing to do with who I am. I have no final answer, nor do I need one. I'm not looking for one. > > > > > > > > I think it was Krishnamurti who said that when a person relates to the image in his mind of another, he is not relating, he is not paying attention, he is complacent. > > > > > > > > When you say your rely on neuroscience to tell you about consciousness, it has a very religious sound. It is very much like saying one relies on the Bible to tell him what is so. > > > > > > > > Have you explored consciousness directly, without relying on an authority? Without relying on borrowed concepts from a book, or from another? > > > > > > > > What is the direct truth of being aware? > > > > > > > > wissentlich? > > > > > > > > Speak, Werner. > > > > > > > > Directly. > > > > > > > > Enough complacency and cigars! > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > I am into these things since almost 5o years. I have heard and read all those arguments a thousand times before etc. Especially the word " truth " almost lets me vomit, so often heard it uttered by incarnations of arrogance and pride ..... argh > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I always call it the troof. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > trolf? > > tell me the trolf. 'trolf' sounds like Werner vomiting ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok Dan, > > > > > > > > > > > > as long as you take seat in your non-dual philosoper's chair I won't follow you. I myself prefer science, in this case neuroscience which I find much more satisfying regarding consciousness. Advaita offers a confortable niche for people loving the comfort of final answers. I don't mind, enjoy your non-dual cigar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > Werner - > > > > > > > > > > What you are offering is a mental image that has nothing to do with who I am. I have no final answer, nor do I need one. I'm not looking for one. > > > > > > > > > > I think it was Krishnamurti who said that when a person relates to the image in his mind of another, he is not relating, he is not paying attention, he is complacent. > > > > > > > > > > When you say your rely on neuroscience to tell you about consciousness, it has a very religious sound. It is very much like saying one relies on the Bible to tell him what is so. > > > > > > > > > > Have you explored consciousness directly, without relying on an authority? Without relying on borrowed concepts from a book, or from another? > > > > > > > > > > What is the direct truth of being aware? > > > > > > > > > > wissentlich? > > > > > > > > > > Speak, Werner. > > > > > > > > > > Directly. > > > > > > > > > > Enough complacency and cigars! > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > I am into these things since almost 5o years. I have heard and read all those arguments a thousand times before etc. Especially the word " truth " almost lets me vomit, so often heard it uttered by incarnations of arrogance and pride ..... argh > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I always call it the troof. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > trolf? > > > > tell me the trolf. > > 'trolf' sounds like Werner vomiting ;-). P.S. Sartre spoke of 'existential nausea' as well, although he was honest enough to relate it to himself, not others. But then, even that degree of honesty is rare. Sartre was a rare bird. And 'complete' honesty is an un-born bird ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok Dan, > > > > > > > > > > > > as long as you take seat in your non-dual philosoper's chair I won't follow you. I myself prefer science, in this case neuroscience which I find much more satisfying regarding consciousness. Advaita offers a confortable niche for people loving the comfort of final answers. I don't mind, enjoy your non-dual cigar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > Werner - > > > > > > > > > > What you are offering is a mental image that has nothing to do with who I am. I have no final answer, nor do I need one. I'm not looking for one. > > > > > > > > > > I think it was Krishnamurti who said that when a person relates to the image in his mind of another, he is not relating, he is not paying attention, he is complacent. > > > > > > > > > > When you say your rely on neuroscience to tell you about consciousness, it has a very religious sound. It is very much like saying one relies on the Bible to tell him what is so. > > > > > > > > > > Have you explored consciousness directly, without relying on an authority? Without relying on borrowed concepts from a book, or from another? > > > > > > > > > > What is the direct truth of being aware? > > > > > > > > > > wissentlich? > > > > > > > > > > Speak, Werner. > > > > > > > > > > Directly. > > > > > > > > > > Enough complacency and cigars! > > > > > > > > > > - D - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > > > > > > > I am into these things since almost 5o years. I have heard and read all those arguments a thousand times before etc. Especially the word " truth " almost lets me vomit, so often heard it uttered by incarnations of arrogance and pride ..... argh > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's why I always call it the troof. > > > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > trolf? > > > > tell me the trolf. > > 'trolf' sounds like Werner vomiting ;-). > I wonder if Dan was inviting you to start gossip, Tim. But thats I learned about you, you love to gossip. Werner 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.