Nirvana

midnight rain · 01-25-2010, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Notice when talking about thumbs and fingers collectively they're called "digits" then each finger is named e.g. index finger. It doesn't say "the first finger is the thumb" or "the first digit the the thumb finger" so I think I stand corrected. So tell us the truth you held up four fingers and counted them as five, right!?

If you stand corrected, doesn't that mean that you accept that tore proved you wrong?

duga · 01-25-2010, 08:41 PM

CA, you really seem to be into the literature and philosophy you read, but sometimes i can't help but feel you are just shotgunning it. not that your posts are not relevant...it is just sometimes THE point gets lost in the details.

or maybe i'm just dumb.

Neapolitan · 01-25-2010, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

If you stand corrected, doesn't that mean that you accept that tore proved you wrong?

oh, then I didn't mean to use that phrase.
I consider that the thumb is distinct from the finger because they differ both in form and function. The fingers have intermediate phlanges that the thumb lacks and the thumb is opposable, too. I always thought that together (thumb and fingers) are called digits.

storymilo · 01-25-2010, 11:46 PM

As Thomas Jefferson once said.....

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property"

Guybrush · 01-26-2010, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

oh, then I didn't mean to use that phrase.
I consider that the thumb is distinct from the finger because they differ both in form and function. The fingers have intermediate phlanges that the thumb lacks and the thumb is opposable, too. I always thought that together (thumb and fingers) are called digits.

Jeebus, man .. Somewhere at some point in time, did you take a course in how to nitpick and pursue off-topic details in discussions? I write one post and you latch on to the details of an illustrative example and turn it into a discussion which has nothing to do with the main topic of the thread.

Suffice to say in Norway we regard the thumb to be a finger. That's where I come from and that's what I'm used to. A finger is simply what we call digits on the hand just like toes are digits on your feet. I know this definition exists in english as well - for example, I can easily find it on dictionaries and on wikipedia - and whether you're a follower or not, I don't care. However, I do think that because the word finger in english very well can apply to the thumb, you have little reason to nitpick or correct.

I think you should focus your attention more on the overall content and message of the posts.

Blue · 01-26-2010, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

Basically the issue here is the inherent duality involved in values. For instance, I have just entered into a debate with you, against my own conscience, with the intention of having you, and anyone else who reads this post, value my post as being true, and to reshift their value system to say that your post is not necessarily false, but doesn't quite grasp the Buddhist drive behind nirvana. That is, the concept of nirvana says that this is the wrong state of things. We should not be arguing. There is no reason for one of us to be saying things that are wrong and another one of us to be saying things that are right. By entering into this conversation, we are necessarily going to generate suffering. Either one of us is going to realize he was wrong, and either feel stupid or try to cover it up and drag themselves further into a hopeless position, or we'll both just stick to our own positions, feel that we're right, but still feel frustrated that we couldn't get the other to switch over to our side. The idea is, further, that this entire mode of valuation, of seeing certain things as good and others as bad, certain things as right and others as wrong, is in fact a mode of being which we are trapped by because we identify with it. And therefore, letting go of this mode of being seems synonymous to us with death.

And of course, it doesn't make much sense for me to say anything beyond this, because as I said, we are in a debate, and obviously in the mode of valuation. I am trying to construct meaning. The meaning I specifically was trying to construct with this thread was that for a moment, I experienced a different mode of being, one in which everything was free to simply be, and did not have to be good or bad, this or that, a fan of this band, this sexual lifestyle, this religion, this philosophy, this species... Of course, the way I am trying to construct this meaning is entirely impossible. The sort of meaning I am making now is meaning as opposed to meaninglessness--in this other mode, I could be typing gibberish and it would be just as meaningful, for the simple fact that I was typing it. I don't know if this post is useful or if it makes sense, I don't know if I'm helping myself or anyone else. But, in that moment, the only desire I had was to help other conscious beings experience the bliss that I felt. I realized that life did have a meaning, that, because everything is simply consciousness, the entire point of life is to bring all consciousness to its most ecstatic state--which is not its egotistical peak, when it can get all other consciousnesses to recognize how brilliant it is (which I am still implicitly trying to do here) but rather, when it becomes free to let go of this desire, and simply be, simply realize that all its attempts to grasp itself are the result of itself overflowing, beautifully, magnificently. I hope this helps you.

This is very similar to how I view it. 'Nirvana' isn't something you "strive" for per se; I think that's missing the point.

Guybrush · 01-26-2010, 03:16 PM

I like to think of myself as practical. For example, I believe that if you observe reindeers grazing on the tundra, you're observing an activity which also takes place even if you were not there to observe it.

To discard knowledge just because we don't understand everything seems naive to me. I usually understand the reasoning behind such ideas, but while I do agree we can't know anything for sure and believe that's an important insight, acting like it's the only truth that matters seems pacifying and non-constructive. I also don't like it when people use philosophy only to point out the problems of empirical knowledge without being complementive and constructive. It's like complaining without helping out. Sure science may not perfect, but no method of digging at the truth is - something that inevitably also applies to any kind of philosophy. At least science has criteria for what it can accept as true or not which is more than you can say for much of the philosophy and religion out there.

duga · 01-26-2010, 03:42 PM

^

i couldn't put it better myself.

Neapolitan · 01-26-2010, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

At least science has criteria for what it can accept as true or not which is more than you can say for much of the philosophy and religion out there.

How are you sure that philosphy and religion has no criteria at all (which I feel is what you really want to say) or lacks criteria? In short what is your criterion (or criteria - if you have more then one) to make such an assertion?
To discard philosophy and religion like that just because a person doesn't understand everything about them seems a lack of understand on the part of the discarder. Not all religions are the same, and it's just an umbrella term that encompasses a whole wide range of divergent religious beliefs, so it is a bit unfair to make a blanket statement about all religions. Knowing more about religion then modern philosophy and I can not say I totally disagree with your snide remark about philosophy having no criteria, but I am sure most students of philosophy believe they have criteria if they can only comphrehend it. The reason modern philosphy fails so often is the it notoriously violates "lex parsimoniae" and thus rendering incomprehenisble to average person.

duga · 01-26-2010, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

How are you sure that philosphy and religion has no criteria at all (which I feel is what you really want to say) or lacks criteria? In short what is your criterion (or criteria - if you have more then one) to make such an assertion?
To discard philosophy and religion just because a person doesn't understand everything about them seems a lack of understand on the part of the discarder. Not all religions are the same, and it's just an umbrella term that encompasses a whole wide range of divergent religious beliefs, so it is a bit unfair to make a blanket statement about religion. Knowing more about religion then modern philosophy and I can not say I totally disagree with your snide remark about philosophy having no criteria, but I am sure most students of philosophy believe they have criteria if they can only comphrehend it. The reason modern philosphy fails so often is the it notoriously violates "lex parsimoniae" and thus rendering incomprehenisble to average person.

religion has a criteria and that criteria is that religion is itself a philosophy and can in no way be PROVEN...save for one of the infamous prophets descending from the sky.

good example: religion attempts to bend and manipulate modern scientific knowledge to support their assertions. i saw a museum dedicated to explaining the existence of dinosaurs through christianity. it was truly sad.

science, on the other hand, both accepts being proven wrong and its main goal is to piece together inferences that we can observe through our advances. it learns from the outside world, it doesn't throw an assumption out hoping to be proven right.

01-25-2010, 08:41 PM	#42 (permalink)
duga MB quadrant's JM Vincent Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,762	CA, you really seem to be into the literature and philosophy you read, but sometimes i can't help but feel you are just shotgunning it. not that your posts are not relevant...it is just sometimes THE point gets lost in the details. or maybe i'm just dumb. __________________ Confusion will be my epitaph...

01-26-2010, 03:16 PM	#47 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	I like to think of myself as practical. For example, I believe that if you observe reindeers grazing on the tundra, you're observing an activity which also takes place even if you were not there to observe it. To discard knowledge just because we don't understand everything seems naive to me. I usually understand the reasoning behind such ideas, but while I do agree we can't know anything for sure and believe that's an important insight, acting like it's the only truth that matters seems pacifying and non-constructive. I also don't like it when people use philosophy only to point out the problems of empirical knowledge without being complementive and constructive. It's like complaining without helping out. Sure science may not perfect, but no method of digging at the truth is - something that inevitably also applies to any kind of philosophy. At least science has criteria for what it can accept as true or not which is more than you can say for much of the philosophy and religion out there. __________________ Something Completely Different

01-26-2010, 03:42 PM	#48 (permalink)
duga MB quadrant's JM Vincent Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,762	^ i couldn't put it better myself. __________________ Confusion will be my epitaph...

01-25-2010, 11:46 PM	#44 (permalink)
storymilo Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,845	As Thomas Jefferson once said..... "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property"