Arthgon wrote:
And here we go again. Xyle is probably turning the introvert contra extrovert thread into religion again.
Since when did philosophical questions about reality become religion?
Grossenschwamm wrote:
If everyone misunderstands you while you and everyone reading speak the same language, you said something wrong. If it's impossible for you to use terms that everyone understands to make a coherent thought, you said something wrong.
Did I say that *everyone* misunderstands me? No, I said (or meant to say) that I expect to encounter misunderstandings because...
Quote:
You can't just say "Oh, it'll happen because not everyone interprets words the same way."
No, I expect to encounter misunderstandings because I know what I mean to say so when I read the words that I wrote, and the meaning of what I intend to say sometimes surplants the meaning of the words that I reading. The counter to this is to wait three days (in order to forget) and then proofread. Do you really what to hear replies three to nine days (due to multiple drafts) after you post your posts?
Quote:
your wood allegory can easily be construed as "Lesser people worry about inherent differences, but I don't, because I Am."
My apologies, but I must have rushed that allegory more that I thought I did because that isn't even close to what I meant. -- {I created a rewrite, but it is proabably just as bad, and I doubt that anybody wants to read it, even if it wasn't.}
Smuel wrote:
I was defining it as "consciousness" really. i.e. That thing that you proceeded to ramble on about. Exactly that thing. It's the "I" in "I think therefore I am". Yours is an illusion, as is everyone else's. Your memories are reconstructed at the moment you think you're recalling them. Your moment-to-moment decisions are governed more by base instinct and learned response than high reason. The whole lot is not what you think it is, and it really doesn't matter which philosophy you try to bring on side to support your view, because all of that stuff is constructed within the illusion and is therefore irrelevant.
If *I* equals of the essence of I then *I* means the ability to seperate me from not me. Therefore, the only way for *I* to be an illusion is for there to be no seperation. However, because I, Xyle, can perceive that I exist, *I* cannot be an illusion because the
ability to seperate me from not me creates the *I* necessary to seperate me from not me.
Does this communicate the differences in our positions in an understandable mannter?
And the question of illusion is still bullshit because we still choose to satisfy
...our hungers.
TheDavisChanger wrote:
In order for Xyle to steer this thread, somebody has to take the bait...
What if I am just a small fish on Smuel's hook drawing all the bigger fish to it?
