 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 97 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2608851 Today 0 Topics 127230 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ONE The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of ten thousand things. Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations. These two spring from the same source but differ in name; This appears as darkness. Darkness within darkness. The gate to all mystery. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
expensive |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh the links gone now.... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This is the water and this is the well. Drink full and descend. The horse is the white of the eyes, and dark within. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what did fobia linkify one of the words to a BUY BEST TAO CHEAP page |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i was linked to a small but pricey clutch purse. gone now. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You mean the LOEWE GATE LEATHER FLAP-OVER WALLET? I've got one already. Though the sword in Fleep's strapline links to (Please buy a couple and send Phobia a few well-earned shekels ) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Handy for mock executions of political opponents and women. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Out of stock?! Caliphate: postponed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There must have been a run on them. Phobia's coining it in, living like a sultan. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
We can understand person as persona - the „face“ that an actor puts on to indicate the role he is to play on stage - but only as the persona of absolute nothingness. […] Person is through and through real. It is the most real of realities. […] But at the same time it is in the most elemental sense an „illusion“ precisely because it is the highest mode of being, constituted in unison with absolute nothingness and becoming manifest as such. […] Personality is something altogether alive. […] It is a mask of absolute nothingness precisely as living spirit. […] The absolute near side is the field of the essential death of […] personal entities. It is the same time the field of the essential life of those same beings, the field where what is absolutely unnameable has a name and lives in the everyday world of names. claims Keji Nishitani (1982, pp. 71-106) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Getting more to the point .... there were several relevant postings in various threads .. and it's impossible not to lose track a bit ... What I'd like to know from you is: If you don't think that personhood is part of, let's say, 'fundamental' reality but something 'derivated' or even 'illusory' ... could you give a short summary of your reasons for thinking so? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Nice! I'll have to read that. Not sure what "absolute near side" means, I guess it will make more sense in context. I see the nothingness aspect of Tao as nonspecificity, not as absolute metaphysical nonbeing. It's the uncarved block, totality before it's carved up and analyzed and named and subdivided. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, the personal is contingent. It comes and goes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think mohamed is a stupid bitch also in the eternal sense not just because i think he is a stupid bitch and even though stupid and bitch are relative |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what i’m trying to say is that he is ABSOLUTELY a stupid bitch |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i’m sure even before a baby learns what stupid and bitch are s/he’d look at mohamed and go “that’s a stupid bitch alright” |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, i admit i had the same suspect recently |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
bro please you’re going to make me cry |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
shit or cum |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
RD got the scent of a prince now that hes half dead |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
now were joking and shit but i aint fooling no one horrordome. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
consciously |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Scoundrels are disrupting my nice seminar on Eastern metaphysics and yet my weapon remains on back order. Truly, there ain't no justice. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this ain’t no metaphysics this is the truth bro fo’ realz |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but sorry for interrupting |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wasn’t a reply to you mohamed you prince sniffer |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
just hold a sign with MOHAMED SAY MORE written on it |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
TWO Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness. All can know good as good only because there is evil. Therefore having and not having arise together; Difficult and easy complement each other; Long and short contrast each other; High and low rest upon each other; Voice and sound harmonize each other; Front and back follow each other. Therefore the wise go about doing nothing, teaching no-talking. The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease, Creating, yet not possessing, Working, yet not taking credit. Work is done, then forgotten. Therefore it lasts forever. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
three? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse-Confucius.html http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse-Lao.html http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse-Tzu.html |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm very picky about the translation though. THREE Not exalting the gifted prevents quarrelling. Not collecting treasures prevents stealing. Not seeing desirable things prevents confusion of the heart. The wise therefore rule by emptying hearts and stuffing bellies, By weakening ambitions and strengthening bones. If people lack knowledge and desire, Then it is best not to interfere. If nothing is done, then all will be well. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
FOUR The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled. Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things! Blunt the sharpness, Untangle the knot, Soften the glare, Merge with dust. Oh, hidden deep but ever present! I do not know from whence it comes. It is the forefather of the ancestors. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thanks |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I really like the new mermaid avatar |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
when you cut a pepper in two, looks like a heart |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so what |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it doesn’t even look like a heart |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it looks like a heart sectioned in two, in the anatomical sense, not the hearts you send or receive via email or message |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh sorry bro my fault |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hey welt come back and let's enjoy some |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that just made me lol with hours of distance |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
dead announces dead.. no respect for real catos anymore |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You say „the personal comes and goes“. But you never experience the real world other than as a person. The impersonal/objective only ever appears as the other side of the personal/the subject. The idea of cutting off the objective from the personal (and positing an ultimate objective world that could exist without the personal) is thus a theoretical abstraction which might be false. [The authors of the Tao Te Ching might have had something like this in mind when they claimed that the Dao is beyond opposites which would include opposites such as personal/impersonal, subjective/objective]. But then I would say that the personal is a fundamental part of that which you could call ‚ultimate reality‘ - because ultimate reality would be that which makes possible the dimensions of personality-impersonality subjectivity-objectivity which we inhabit. But it would be wrong to identify the ultimate dimension with just one of the aspects (either only the personal or only the impersonal). So what would your position on that be? (Fun fact: Last month I signed a book contract with one of the top academic publishers for a 250 pages book about ontology/metaphysics/critique of metaphysics I’ve written and roughly 2 to 3 pages of the last chapter consist of xltronic-posts which were replies to ‚fleetmouse' which I translated back to German and re-worked a bit to make them sound more serious. Still I like the fact of a serious academic book consisting partially of xltronic posts) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Seems like the same thrust of argument could be used as a vindication of solipsism (it almost is here, actually). Because our selves are so dear to us we exaggerate their importance. I know with my mind, therefore everything's mental. Well, I've only read about Africa in books, therefore Africa must be essentially literary, papery, set in sans-serif, and so forth...? The personal gets snuffed out every night in dreamless sleep. I can snuff out the personal with a club. Or more neatly, I'll give you a personal example of the contingent nature of the mind and the self. I get migraine headaches. Recently I've started to get transient aphasia during migraine onset. I lose the ability to speak and understand language. At first it was terrifying but now it's just interesting. It's great fun to read sentences in books and have them mean absolutely nothing then slowly resolve back into meaning. It's an intellectual roller coaster. We're contingent and composite. But we're narcissistic so we like to imagine that our little subjectivities are central, maybe even eternal. We guard them jealously, cling to them and fear their loss. But think about it this way: there were billions of Weltless years before you, so why should the billions after you be any scarier or more worrisome? p.s. I want royalties, or at least a copy of the book. just give me the title and I'll get it from lib gen ;-) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But then I would say that the personal is a fundamental part of that which you could call ‚ultimate reality‘ - because ultimate reality would be that which makes possible the dimensions of personality-impersonality subjectivity-objectivity which we inhabit. But it would be wrong to identify the ultimate dimension with just one of the aspects (either only the personal or only the impersonal). If you were to divide the cosmos into "penguiny" and "non-penguiny" I'd say you were vastly overestimating the role of penguins in the cosmos. Isn't that what you're doing with the personal? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Naive realism / naive ‚objectivism' - if somebody is opposed to ‚naive realism‘ (the unthinking conviction that reality in itself is the same as it appears to oneself) shouldn’t they also be opposed to what one could call ‚naive objectivism‘ (the unthinking conviction that there could be an object without a subject) ? The structure seems to be similar: The naive realist beliefs that the pine-tree is green in itself, and not just appearing to green to him. The naive objectivist believes that there are objects in themselves, not just objects appearing to a subject. … My question to you would be: Where do you see the relevant dis-analogy between ‚naive realism‘ and ‚naive objectivism‘? The status of personhood/minds - The claim that personhood or mind are ‚fundamental parts of reality’ doesn’t imply (and actually contradict the claim that ‚everything is mental’ or ‚everything is personal’ .. it implies that everything emerges in the context of that which is mental/personal …the distinction between the mental and non-mental and the personal and non-personal is not denied … but they depend on each other - The empirical experiments on the human brain and the human mind which you cite count in favor of that claim. There is no ’sheer presence of the non-conscious’ as it were, but non-consciousness emerges as a part of the world in which consciousness and unconsciousness can be meaningfully opposed. The scientists who note the unconsciousness of the patient are conscious; the patient who is informed about his unconsciousness or infers it is conscious. ….. What is empirically given is thus the mix of consciousness and unconsciousness. The idea that there could be an objective world without any consciousness is not empirically grounded but a philosophical speculation or spontaneous gut-reaction to certain empirical facts. It might be right that this world could exist, but that would need more solid proof than brain |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
... than brain-experiments. - Was there dead matter before conscious beings emerged? Once you enter the world as a subject, then yes, it is objectively true that minerals, gas-planets and so on existed long before you did. But what is their ultimate status? Can they be classified as objects if there are no subjects gazing at whatever it is that shows up as a gas, minerals, planets when subjects relate to it? Does the rejection of the metaphysical subject/object-dinstiction imply solipsism? - I don’t feel the threat of solipsism because even though subject and object are conditions of each other I experience a lot which is definitely not me. The dinstiction between me and the external world, I lean towards, is that of control/influence. I can’t control the weather or how children react to the toys I give them, or how my body reacts to lead-poisoning - so here something radically external shows up. But I can control, to some extent, what I focus my attention on and so on. So that is me. So solipsism as the thesis that only I exist would be obviously false then. Overestimating the importance? - The dinstction penguins+non-penguins is not perfectly analogous to the distinction personal+non-personal or mind+non-mind or subject+non-subject. The fundamental relationship we experience is that between subject and object. The penguin has a mind, a personality and I would also call him a subject (though maybe not a rational one) that relates to an external world. So as an example of how the basic relationship of subjectivity-objectivity could be realized I don’t see why the penguin should be un-important. - The subject-object relationship, however, is important because that’s our ultimate starting point from which all our experiments, inquiries, gut-reactions and so on start |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
…. I’d actually send you a physical copy of the book once it’s published in probably May 2020, if you want one, it’s written in German though, so it might be difficult to even identify the xltronic posts … but at least it’s at a pretty hard-cover and very expensive ( one can pre-order it at Amazon.com for $114.99 right now) … |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Adolf Welt presents the first in a series of "A Zilty Guide to..." with the introductory theme of Ontology/Metaphysics. With a foreword by wMw this lavishly tooled edition will add refinement to any drawing room, especially when collected alongside forthcoming volumes by epicmegatrack and larn. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
