TheMadMan

Obviously the progress of science and technology is going forward. I'm simply adding that its primary focus is not on general human needs but the need...

Yes, the aim of meditation is to move from awareness of objects to awareness of awareness. But I am wary of seeing it as a self-referential loop which...

Its not about either or. They all suffer in one direction and "progress" in another. Philosophy became more and more analytical, the original meaning ...

What if this approach to the smaller and smaller is the problem of modernity with the advent of science and technology? What if our alienation with th...

I mean they are not on the same level of being. Like sunlight and the sun. Sunlight is a radiation of the sun. It is the sun as emanation of it but it...

I would say that he was proving his philosophy by example. If he would have accepted exile he would have implicitly abandoned his philosophy. He was s...

This takes us to a deeper level. I would say that the "I", as you put it, as a reflective narrator, the Descartes "I", is a construction created by th...

I never said they should be mutually exclusive. I said they could be, and gave you a simple example.

I agree. They are not separate. So to an extent we are the body but I don't believe that we are the consciousness in the same way. My disagreement to ...

I'm not clear what you mean by this. Could you expand?

Also to @"Jack Cummins" If you subscribe to materialism, which says consciousness is emergent from matter then I can't suggest anything else. If not, ...

I don't fully agree to this. And by your own sentence you don't either. You say: I am an object and then you say I have this object. Being and having ...

When you don't feel like being respectful anymore, that's when maybe you should end your dialogue which has stopped being one.

"An unexamined life is not worth living". Everything is a distraction to an untrained dog. Work on your attention. Let not your monkey mind lead your ...

The words don't make a prophet so not all are prophets, that's obvious. Those are the only prophets, not just most genuine. Direct experience comes fi...

Ofc that's what I mean. It is silly saying that they agree merely verbally. Clear example Buddha says no-god, Jesus says God. Buddha says no self, Hin...

But why do you call it disagreement when they experience the same reality? Their agreement is beyond the words and that's what agreement is. I always ...

I'm not talking about religions.

Sure you can disregard all of them, its up to you. But you are not solving any problem by doing that.

You ask me to show you something and then you say "(You can't do it.)". I'll not bother arguing with someone who has completely made up their mind.

I suppose the problem is my use of the word prophet. It is used very broadly. I personally would disregard most so-called prophet. But that's just my ...

Are you saying that prophets ( and I don't mean every so-called prophet) agreeing is problematic?

Fair enough. I will not say that I have gnosis of them but only intuition and the extent of my current understanding.

All paths of the mountain have the same destination. If you inquire both Smith and Buddha the destination would not be the same.

Never said I was.

You test it through rationality, insight and experience.

I'm not into organized religion at all. For me there is a big difference between those who awakened and the religions created around them.

What?

Im not sure what that means.

You didn't even understand what I said. It is childish to put Smith and Buddha on the same category.

Childish The other way around is the truth. When you actually learn what they said, you understand they were saying the same thing.

Don't even mate. Com' on

One could tell a stupid person "you are a smart". Really, possibilities are endless.

Religions do not agree but their prophets do. If you understand their context and the implicit in their words you'll find only superficial, temporal a...

I can do a lot of harm while causing pleasant experience. In fact lots of what are harmful on the long term started as pleasant on the short term.

I'm afraid you have understood nothing I said, hence your reply.

Fair. I'll get a horse then.

That's a good question. I would say that worshiping understanding without realizing it (living it) is irrational idolatry. It's like praying to the st...

Those two are one question. Man was an animal. As animals we were in accordance with nature, just like any animal is. At some point that animal became...

I have addressed most of your points previously but in short the film scenario doesn't apply in my hypothetical. Like @"Philosophim" it seems you want...

Pleasure

Yes, this hypothetical changes a lot. My choice may seem radical but I would take the red pill regardless of what the real world is like. Of course as...

Firstly no, lastly yes. In the sense that a seed is not yet a tree but the potential of the tree exists in the seed.

The exclusion of those points is deliberate as they open too many doors. My hypothetical is not set in the world of the movie. But if you would like i...

Well, fair enough.

I disagree. The pragmatism is very clear. That is it. Although I don't agree that 'truth at the expense of (illusory) happiness' is evil. In your own ...

I will give an ambiguous answer which we can explore together. A person is a potential of becoming a being.

Because there are certain moments in one's life when they are exclusive. It's not pessimist or optimist. It's a pragmatic hypothetical.

No. In choosing the truth the suffering is not necessarily increased in the real world. One is merely refusing the addition of happiness from the matr...

I have made no complaint. Nor am I discussing suffering although that is an interesting topic. I am only creating a hypothetical where one has the dil...