It's time to wake up!

a reply to: daskakik

You don't know what they mean?

Not specifically, but I think it's obvious what was meant by it. I would call you something in return but I can't come up with anything. I think I'm getting old.

But anyway, my point is that 2 and 2 is 4. There is no reason for this law to change, so if someone calls it 5 or something else, I might argue why he's wrong. And maybe he'll see where he fell.

I only discuss what I know for certain. There are an infinite amount of things I don't know and so many things I know now that could be wrong.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Not specifically, but I think it's obvious what was meant by it.

You are treating your "knowledge" like a religion. You don't seem to be able to question it. Instead you bend over backwards to defend it.

But anyway, my point is that 2 and 2 is 4. There is no reason for this law to change, so if someone calls it 5 or something else, I might argue why he's wrong. And maybe he'll see where he fell.

2 + 2 = 4 is not the same as "x is the nature of reality".

I only discuss what I know for certain. There are an infinite amount of things I don't know and so many things I know now that could be wrong.

And we have already established that philosophy lies between, hard science (2+2=4) and the metaphysical. You can't use it to argue anything past either end.

DE is the here now. I can respect that but, that is as far as it goes.

a reply to: daskakik

You are treating your "knowledge" like a religion. You don't seem to be able to question it. Instead you bend over backwards to defend it.

And you are defending what you know without question as well. And It's like calling atheism a religion.

2 + 2 = 4 is not the same as "x is the nature of reality".

2 and is is 4. It is impossible to be conscious of being unconscious. Simple but certain facts. It's just how reality works. All I said was that our direct experience is what's actually happening now, and that past and future are only illusions arising in the now. Simple, like 2+2 = 4.

And we have already established that philosophy lies between, hard science (2+2=4) and the metaphysical. You can't use it to argue anything past either end.
DE is the here now. I can respect that but, that is as far as it goes.

Yes, that's as far as it can go.

originally posted by: Andy1144
And you are defending what you know without question as well. And It's like calling atheism a religion.

No, I am not. I have not even really mentioned what I believe, let alone defend it.

I'm an atheist so, I hate it when people call it a religion but I also dislike it when atheists act religious.

2 and is is 4. It is impossible to be conscious of being unconscious. Simple but certain facts.

Both of those are true but also over-simplification. They can't be used to explain everything.

Yes, that's as far as it can go.

And that is where it stands for me. Catch a glimpse of something beyond here and now and then DE starts to look like the flat earth society.

How is it possible to catch a glimpse of some thing outside of experience?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
How is it possible to catch a glimpse of some thing outside of experience?

How did we get here?

I can't answer either of those questions.

a reply to: daskakik
It may well be a mystery that 'we' seem to be here.

But if there is experiencing then you will be present.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
It may well be a mystery that 'we' seem to be here.

But if there is experiencing then you will be present.

Back at the wordplay I see. Yes experience is experience.

I didn't use the word experience though. I said here and now.

a reply to: daskakik
"Catch a glimpse of something beyond here and now and then Direct Experience starts to look like the flat earth society."

a reply to: Itisnowagain

DE is a concept and not the word "experience".

"Catch a glimpse of something beyond here and now"

And the context is that DE is limited.

Before I get called vague. For me "Here and now" is this shared experience. Not "wherever you go there you are".

a reply to: daskakik
Direct experience is the only thing which is not a concept.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Direct experience is the only thing which is not a concept.

Yeah and god is love.

Nonconceptual Reality is how things are. It is direct perception of reality without the involvement of the mind. It is both presence and absence, but also neither. It is neither self nor no-self, nor the absence of both self and no-self. It is both being and nonbeing and neither. It is everything and it is nothing. Whenever there is negation or affirmation then there is conceptualization, and the true reality is gone. And hence we call reality as it is the Nameless; it cannot be named.

ahalmaas.com...

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Neat concept.

a reply to: daskakik

Both of those are true but also over-simplification. They can't be used to explain everything.

I already told you that I cant know everything. I can know some facts for sure though.

I have not even really mentioned what I believe, let alone defend it.

You reply to me what you believe is wrong in my points.

And that is where it stands for me. Catch a glimpse of something beyond here and now and then DE starts to look like the flat earth society.

I don't know what that means.

originally posted by: Andy1144
I already told you that I cant know everything. I can know some facts for sure though.

That wasn't about you.

You reply to me what you believe is wrong in my points.

Same word different context.

I don't know what that means.

Exactly, you can't discuss something that you have no knowledge of. You are limited to the experiences that you have had.

a reply to: daskakik

Exactly, you can't discuss something that you have no knowledge of. You are limited to the experiences that you have had.

At least I mostly ask. You think you have knowledge of what I'm talking about but you clearly don't. And I ask you what you know for the sake of discussion. You then change the context, saying it doesn't matter. Clearly you don't know what direct experience is if you call it a concept. Look the definition up, although itisnow did show it in the past, not the one in this page.

Same word different context.

Not that different. I am making points why my logic is right, and you are making counter points to what is said. Both deal with beliefs. So call yourself a religious zealot, if believing something and defending it automatically makes it a religion.

dp

originally posted by: Andy1144
At least I mostly ask. You think you have knowledge of what I'm talking about but you clearly don't.

This again.

Just let it go.

Not that different

Different enough.

a reply to: daskakik

So how am I supposed to reply to that? You don't deal with my points specifically but you drift off.