|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 8, 2017 1:36:29 GMT
If it's a concept to S (I'm assuming you meant S--S is the person, x is the concept), then it exists as a concept to S. Re concepts being illusory or delusional, if we're talking about concepts qua concepts, which is what I'm talking about, then the idea of an illusory or delusional concept makes no sense. What would the difference be between an illusory and a non-illusory concept? It is all illusion Terrapin, regardless of what you believe to exist. So then the idea of an illusory versus a non-illusory concept would make no sense, right? Because we wouldn't even know what we're referring to with a "non-illusory concept." |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Oct 8, 2017 1:41:36 GMT
It is all illusion Terrapin, regardless of what you believe to exist. So then the idea of an illusory versus a non-illusory concept would make no sense, right? Because we wouldn't even know what we're referring to with a "non-illusory concept." Infinite regress. There's no way around it. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 8, 2017 1:43:07 GMT
So then the idea of an illusory versus a non-illusory concept would make no sense, right? Because we wouldn't even know what we're referring to with a "non-illusory concept." Infinite regress. There's no way around it. You'd have to explain that one in more detail. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Oct 8, 2017 1:47:33 GMT
Infinite regress. There's no way around it. You'd have to explain that one in more detail. My pleasure. If you can succeed in escaping an illusion by getting outside of it and recognizing it as an illusion, you still cannot be 100% certain that you're not still in an illusion unless you get outside of it as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 8, 2017 2:01:03 GMT
You'd have to explain that one in more detail. My pleasure. If you can succeed in escaping an illusion by getting outside of it and recognizing it as an illusion, you still cannot be 100% certain that you're not still in an illusion unless you get outside of it as well. The issue was that Toasted Cheese believes that everything is an illusion. If we believe that everything is an illusion, what in the world would we even be talking about with an illusion/non-illusion distinction? What would the terms even refer to? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Oct 8, 2017 2:13:48 GMT
My pleasure. If you can succeed in escaping an illusion by getting outside of it and recognizing it as an illusion, you still cannot be 100% certain that you're not still in an illusion unless you get outside of it as well. The issue was that Toasted Cheese believes that everything is an illusion. If we believe that everything is an illusion, what in the world would we even be talking about with an illusion/non-illusion distinction? What would the terms even refer to? You'd have to ask him, but I think he means everything within our limited perception is an illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 8, 2017 2:30:21 GMT
The issue was that Toasted Cheese believes that everything is an illusion. If we believe that everything is an illusion, what in the world would we even be talking about with an illusion/non-illusion distinction? What would the terms even refer to? You'd have to ask him, but I think he means everything within our limited perception is an illusion. Maybe, although I wish he'd just say that in that case. Also, again I don't know why he'd be talking about perception when we're talking about concepts. We don't perceive concepts (perception having a connotation that we're receiving external information: we perceive via our five senses). Anyway, it's almost impossible to get clear, straightforward responses from him. For one, because he insists on reading a whole host of other stuff into anything you ask or say, so that he figures there's always some sneaky, ulterior motive, so that if he'd agree with anything or be straightforward, he's going to undermine his own view. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 8, 2017 4:21:23 GMT
You'd have to ask him, but I think he means everything within our limited perception is an illusion. Also, again I don't know why he'd be talking about perception when we're talking about concepts. We don't perceive concepts (perception having a connotation that we're receiving external information: we perceive via our five senses). Anyway, it's almost impossible to get clear, straightforward responses from him. For one, because he insists on reading a whole host of other stuff into anything you ask or say, so that he figures there's always some sneaky, ulterior motive, so that if he'd agree with anything or be straightforward, he's going to undermine his own view.There are no limitations Terrapin, only those which we place on ourselves. You appear to constantly be arguing for yours. Why is that?
I have commented many times on here that it is ALL illusion, even what we perceive as reality. The only way out of the suffering of life, is to start recognizing this. This is about having self-awareness, and that there is no "self". You appear too busy attempting to compartmentalize and intellectualize things, and undermining my view because of your own pride and limitations. You want me to undermine my own view, by projecting yours onto me, when it is not as open or aware. It's like setting traps and not born out of honesty or truth.
Perception\belief\concepts, are all born out of the ego mindset and are all one and the same. They are not real. That is what you fail to connect with and are too caught up in your dualistic notion\outlook. No-one is going to think any less of you, if start to let go and stop feeling so needy to sound impressive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 8, 2017 4:23:08 GMT
It is all illusion Terrapin, regardless of what you believe to exist. So then the idea of an illusory versus a non-illusory concept would make no sense, right? Because we wouldn't even know what we're referring to with a "non-illusory concept." A non-illusionary concept.  You would have to explain that one to me, in order to make some sense. I bet you can't. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 8, 2017 5:24:41 GMT
You'd have to explain that one in more detail. My pleasure. If you can succeed in escaping an illusion by getting outside of it and recognizing it as an illusion, you still cannot be 100% certain that you're not still in an illusion unless you get outside of it as well. If one has stepped outside of the illusion, and still not certain, then I would say they haven't come to the realization and are not wholly detached. The illusion is still the illusion, so they wouldn't have stepped outside of it fully. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 8, 2017 9:36:01 GMT
tpfkar You may be ruled by turbulence without realizing it. Don't let it continue to disrupt the nature of your circuit and keep you misled. The complexity of the present time demands an unveiling of your dreams if you are going to survive. But the ever present plenum beckons you even as you labor to extend your holistic dormancy.
BlackjackThanks for the reading sweetcakes, but I don't take advise from the dark side.  But guidance is the driver of power, liger. It is in holistic condensing, that we are reborn. That is the clincher.
Birthday Boy |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 8, 2017 12:18:30 GMT
So then the idea of an illusory versus a non-illusory concept would make no sense, right? Because we wouldn't even know what we're referring to with a "non-illusory concept." A non-illusionary concept. You would have to explain that one to me, in order to make some sense. I bet you can't. Do you understand that we're agreeing that the distinction doesn't make sense? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 8, 2017 12:58:07 GMT
tpfkar Thanks for the reading sweetcakes, but I don't take advise from the dark side. But guidance is the driver of power, liger. It is in holistic condensing, that we are reborn. That is the clincher.
Birthday BoyAnd your guidance from the dark side, is appropriate? What is your clincher?  |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 8, 2017 12:59:39 GMT
A non-illusionary concept. You would have to explain that one to me, in order to make some sense. I bet you can't. Do you understand that we're agreeing that the distinction doesn't make sense? It's your distinction that isn't making sense. There is no non-illusion, since it is all illusion. Savvy! |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 8, 2017 13:02:51 GMT
Do you understand that we're agreeing that the distinction doesn't make sense? It's your distinction that isn't making sense. There is no non-illusion, since it is all illusion. Savvy! The distinction is an illusion/non-illusion distinction. That is unavoidable if we're saying that something is an illusion. Otherwise what are we saying about it when we say that it's an illusion? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 8, 2017 13:15:30 GMT
It's your distinction that isn't making sense. There is no non-illusion, since it is all illusion. Savvy! The distinction is an illusion/non-illusion distinction. That is unavoidable if we're saying that something is an illusion. Otherwise what are we saying about it when we say that it's an illusion? There is NO distinction, when there is NO separateness which is what you appear to be in conflict with. Now what is the point you are attempting to make here? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 8, 2017 13:29:18 GMT
The distinction is an illusion/non-illusion distinction. That is unavoidable if we're saying that something is an illusion. Otherwise what are we saying about it when we say that it's an illusion? There is NO distinction, when there is NO separateness which is what you appear to be in conflict with. Now what is the point you are attempting to make here? So what are we saying about something when we say that it's illusory. There's no non-illusion. So what properties are we picking out? Why even note that something has a property where no contrary property even exists or is conceivable? It would seem that the word "illsory" or "illusion" adds nothing to anything we apply it to in that case. It would just be nonsensical, like the following: Joe: "Smordy concept." Bob: "What's a smordy concept?" Joe: "Everything is smordy." Bob: "Well, what's non-smordy?" Joe: "There is no such thing." Bob: "So what are we saying when we say that a concept is smordy?" Joe: "Everything is smordy. There's no distinction." We could expect Bob to have no idea what Joe is even talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 8, 2017 21:05:03 GMT
There is NO distinction, when there is NO separateness which is what you appear to be in conflict with. Now what is the point you are attempting to make here? So what are we saying about something when we say that it's illusory. There's no non-illusion. So what properties are we picking out? Why even note that something has a property where no contrary property even exists or is conceivable? It would seem that the word "illsory" or "illusion" adds nothing to anything we apply it to in that case. It would just be nonsensical, like the following: Joe: "Smordy concept." Bob: "What's a smordy concept?" Joe: "Everything is smordy." Bob: "Well, what's non-smordy?" Joe: "There is no such thing." Bob: "So what are we saying when we say that a concept is smordy?" Joe: "Everything is smordy. There's no distinction." We could expect Bob to have no idea what Joe is even talking about. You are attempting to make it complex and complicated, by intellectualizing it. You are speaking in circular rhetoric, to make is sound more important than what it is. This also says something about you. It's also conceited, and yes, nonsensical. Many politicians sound this way too. Illusion is just what it implies, a projected image of something that can be seen as real, or a reflection of real, but ultimately is "unreal". Don't you just love that! How "unreal", is what we perceive as life? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Oct 8, 2017 21:27:36 GMT
You are attempting to make it complex and complicated, by intellectualizing it. You are speaking in circular rhetoric, to make is sound more important than what it is. This also says something about you. It's also conceited, and yes, nonsensical. Many politicians sound this way too. Illusion is just what it implies, a projected image of something that can be seen as real, or a reflection of real, but ultimately is "unreal". Don't you just love that! How "unreal", is what we perceive as life? But in your view there is no real, right? So what the heck is "real" referring to? How would we even know what we're talking about with that term? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 8, 2017 21:37:47 GMT
You are attempting to make it complex and complicated, by intellectualizing it. You are speaking in circular rhetoric, to make is sound more important than what it is. This also says something about you. It's also conceited, and yes, nonsensical. Many politicians sound this way too. Illusion is just what it implies, a projected image of something that can be seen as real, or a reflection of real, but ultimately is "unreal". Don't you just love that! How "unreal", is what we perceive as life? But in your view there is no real, right? So what the heck is "real" referring to? How would we even know what we're talking about with that term? I know! Isn't it awesome, or do you prefer "unreal"?  |
|
