Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
realpaladin said:
Doron, you are unable to prove anything at all. You can not set up a coherent philosophic system and when I Google the terms you invented I either get half-ars** cherry-picked copy/pasting from other philosophers/mathematicians or I get forum threads where people were saying just about the same things as we are saying here to you.

I let a psychiatrist read your posts and your reactions... well, you are scoring high on the possibility of having some personality disorder.
Or are having a midlife crisis. she tells me...

But anyway, my guess is that you were mocked at being bad at pilpul and now you need to make it up in some way.

It does not matter a single iota if you are right or not. It does not matter a single iota if you are the only one understanding it.

If you behave as you do now, nobody will understand, nobody will even want to understand and in the end you die alone and all of the energy you put into this has gone wasted.

Nobody will ever herald you as the inventor of anything and nobody will ever remember your name.

The moment you stop posting online... you are history.

If I and the rest of the people here would stop answering, you would graze the net trying to find a new forum where you can start all over again, just so you have the misguided idea that someone cares.

But nobody does.

All that happens here is that some people, like your sidekicks, or people like Punshhh, become adverserial just because they have an odd idea of 'underdog struggle' and need to show compassion.

Get serious about this stuff Doron, or don't get it at all.
Click to expand...

Pathetic personal attacks will get you nowhere.

So this time please try again to deal in details with the following posts, because I answered your questions there, and you still have no clue about actual development of awareness, which is not derived from external tools (which is something that you currently do not understand):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8058022&postcount=468

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8058050&postcount=469

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059077&postcount=473

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059189&postcount=475

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059327&postcount=477


EDIT:

realpaladin said:
Nobody will ever herald you as the inventor of anything and nobody will ever remember your name.
Click to expand...
Remembering my name or not is not relevant to the considered subject, and you defiantly ignore the considered subject, which deals with the direct methods that are needed in order to develop one's mind into Unity awareness.
 
Last edited:
The burden of proof is upon the claimant.

But I will watch how you and Punshhh get to an understanding. Should be hilarious.
 
realpaladin said:
Read carefully, I just explained that your causality failed when saying that if one thing exists we must have unity.
Click to expand...
On the contrary your thought experiment did not address it.

I was referring to what exists, it is impossible to scientifically determine what exists, or the nature of what exists. All we can determine from external experience is that "something" exists, nothing more. Whether what exists is a unity or not cannot therefore be determined.

Also, remember that you can not speak of form or any other property than existence. If unity exists, it does only that; exist, and nought else.
Click to expand...
Again this cannot be determined scientifically, or how unity appears the way it does as the known universe, if it is what exists.

I understand your reasoning here, it makes sense, there is also some logic thrown in. But it is little more than an abstract notion of the human mind and we cannot determine if and how it could be applied to existence.


I beg to differ; having an opinion is based upon conjectures and conjectures are made of the belief that something will hold true so that no time needs to be wasted on that specific part of a hypothesis.
If it did not rely on a belief (not a belief-system) then it would rely on a fact.
Click to expand...
You know my position on this issue by now.


See if you can follow his Wittgenstein aquarel this time :)
Click to expand...
I will it should an exciting read.


I suspect you have not met a mystic before, for they would have told you what I have just told you.
 
doronshadmi said:
Actual extension of senses is really achieved by extending awareness into Unity awareness.

Without actually be at Unity awareness, one's awareness is stuck at the level of manifestation and uses external tools in order to translate other manifestations into the narrow range of the stuck awareness.

For example: Gamma rays that are translated into the range of your ability to see them, definitely do not cause your senses to be developed beyond your current sensual range.

And so is the case about any given sense, it is really being developed only by being aware of the unified source of all possible manifestations.

realpaladin, you still have no clue about the development of Unity awareness, which can actually be done by using practice that directly develops your awareness, without any need of some external tool (external tool actually translates manifestations in order to be fitted into your non-developed awareness).
Click to expand...

Punshhh, can you translate the garbage above into English?
 
realpaladin said:
The burden of proof is upon the claimant.

But I will watch how you and Punshhh get to an understanding. Should be hilarious.
Click to expand...
You don't get it do you?

The burden of proof is upon your ability to directly be aware of the non-subjective source of your mind's activity, which is not in itself a thought (where any thought is some mind's activity).
 
realpaladin said:
Read carefully, I just explained that your causality failed when saying that if one thing exists we must have unity.
Click to expand...
Unity is not one-of-many thing.

Unity is the thing, which enables NOthing and YESthing (where YESthing is at least SOMEthing, known also as one-of-many thing, where many things (which are also a case of YESthing) are known also as EVERYthing).

The current scientific ability (abstract or physical) is restricted only to YESthing.

Organic Mathematics is a method to directly know the thing.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You don't get it do you?

The burden of proof is upon your ability to directly be aware of the non-subjective source of your mind's activity, which is not in itself a thought (where any thought is some mind's activity).
Click to expand...

I gather we are in agreement regarding the issue of unity;)
 
punshhh said:
I gather we are in agreement regarding the issue of unity;)
Click to expand...
Yes, we are in agreement regarding the issue of unity.

Please be aware of the fact that materialists get the physical structure of the brain as the non-subjective source of the mind exactly because they can't directly be aware of the non-subjective source of any possible expression, weather it is a thought or some physical structure.

Without directly being aware of the non-subjective source of all possible expressions (abstract or physical) one's mind can't be developed into Unity awareness.

Most of the posters here simply refuse to actually deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059327&postcount=477 .

Unity is neither material nor spiritual but it is the unified (non-dichotomous) source of them.

By directly being aware of Unity, Materialism and Spiritualism are complement expressions of it in one's life.

A more general expression of the above is seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8061757&postcount=490.
 
Last edited:
Let's take some examples expressed by traditional mathematician:

"Well, here's the thing."

Traditional mathematician is limited only to YESthing ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8061757&postcount=490 ).

"Mathematics has its roots in every day practicality"

Traditional Mathematics' roots and its practical results are limited to the level of thoughts.

"Mathematics is rich enough to embrace many, many inventions all contradictory of each other. If his ideas could be expressed in some rigorous way, then it is conceivable an alternate branch of Mathematics could be forged. Who knows."

Mathematics that is not rooted at Unity awareness is doomed to be limited to awareness at the level of thoughts, which their very nature is to be changed exactly because thoughts are the subjective local and personal aspect with respect to the objective non-local and non-personal aspect of a one unified realm. Because of this limitation, Traditional Mathematics has no rigorous foundation for developed branches. Actually Traditional Mathematics is miss leading by using concept like "branches" exactly because its realm is no more than isolated context-dependent closed systems that have no cross-contexts foundation (a "trunk") for the, so called, "branches".

Furthermore, the current mathematics that is trapped at the level of thoughts gets the term "rigorous" only according to verbal_symbolic skills.

Form these restrictions Traditional Mathematics can't recognize paradigm-shift that is derived from redefining its foundations beyond the subjective and naturally changeable level of thoughts.

"... disprove definitions ..."

Definitions are always at the level of thoughts, where the very nature of thoughts is to be changed when deeper awareness of a given subject is known.

"... recognizing the result as a consequence of basic axioms ..."

The basic foundation is not some collection of axioms at the level of thoughts. The basic foundation is Unity and actual rigorous mathematical science is really achieved only by being at Unity awareness, where Heart AND Reasoning are fulfilled ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059327&postcount=477 ).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Actually Traditional Mathematics is miss leading by using concept like "branches" exactly because its realm is no more than isolated context-dependent closed systems that have no cross-contexts foundation (a "trunk") for the, so called, "branches".
Click to expand...

Somehow, Doron, you have managed to exceed your own ignorance. Truly, you have no bounds for misunderstanding. Well done.
 
jsfisher said:
Somehow, Doron, you have managed to exceed your own ignorance. Truly, you have no bounds for misunderstanding. Well done.
Click to expand...

Doron and punshhh's double act takes the phrase the 'blind leading the blind' to a whole new level.
 
My guess is that either they they will beat around the bush so none of them has to call the other 'stupid', or Punshhh will quietly sneak away, like every other ShadmiSidekick.
 
realpaladin said:
My guess is that either they they will beat around the bush so none of them has to call the other 'stupid', or Punshhh will quietly sneak away, like every other ShadmiSidekick.
Click to expand...

I am not here for your entertainment:p

I was distracted by the consciousness thread which is moving a quite a pace.

I already told you I will not get involved with the exchange between you and Doron. Rather I will add my own take.
 
doronshadmi said:
Yes, we are in agreement regarding the issue of unity.

Please be aware of the fact that materialists get the physical structure of the brain as the non-subjective source of the mind exactly because they can't directly be aware of the non-subjective source of any possible expression, weather it is a thought or some physical structure.

Without directly being aware of the non-subjective source of all possible expressions (abstract or physical) one's mind can't be developed into Unity awareness.

Most of the posters here simply refuse to actually deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059327&postcount=477 .

Unity is neither material nor spiritual but it is the unified (non-dichotomous) source of them.

By directly being aware of Unity, Materialism and Spiritualism are complement expressions of it in one's life.

A more general expression of the above is seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8061757&postcount=490.
Click to expand...

The realisation of a unity of being cannot easily be explained, especially if the people you are explaining it to are of a scientific or sceptical mindset.

I could say read the yoga sutras of Patanjali and learn to meditate. I doubt I would have many takers in a place like this.

It is ironic that posters on this forum regard monism as the ontology of favour. While this is not translated into any more substantial appreciation of what one thing existing might entail. They generally stop at the extent of the reach of science at this time. Philosophy can take them a little further, but there is precious little of that here either.
 
Traditional mathematicians deal only with context-dependent frameworks, yet they claim that these isolated frameworks are "branches" of the same "tree", even if there is no cross-contexts foundation to Traditional Mathematics.
 
punshhh said:
The realisation of a unity of being cannot easily be explained, especially if the people you are explaining it to are of a scientific or sceptical mindset.
Click to expand...
Most of the posters in this thread try to capture it only at the level of definitions, where definitions are no more than expressed thoughts.

The poor results of this limited attitude about Unity awareness is seen over and over again by them all along this thread.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Most of the posters in this thread try to capture it only at the level of definitions, where definitions are no more than expressed thoughts.
Click to expand...

So, Doron, you admit your preference for unexpressed thoughts with no definitions? 'bout time.
 
Those who are trapped only at the level of thoughts (and definitions are always at the level of thoughts) can't realize that the very nature of thoughts is to be changed when deeper awareness of a given subject is known.
 
doronshadmi said:
Those who are trapped only at the level of thoughts (and definitions are always at the level of thoughts) can't realize that the very nature of thoughts is to be changed when deeper awareness of a given subject is known.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you also admit your posts are without thought. 'bout time for that, too.
 
doronshadmi said:
One, which is not a one-of-many thing, as explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8061757&postcount=490 .
Click to expand...

You call that an explanation?

PS. You forgot the swampthing



My philosophy is based on the twothing. Twothingness fuses as onethingness and creates unified unity awareness of things as dual aspects of the unifold manifold where many thing become onething in the thingness of thingness and awareness of non thinking thingness becomes one with all. But only if you shut your eyes.
 
Last edited:
See, no communications between Punshhh and Doron. Sidekicks always have to bow to the master, I guess.
 
dafydd said:
PS. You forgot the swampthing

My philosophy is based on the twothing. Twothingness fuses as onethingness and creates unified unity awareness of things as dual aspects of the unifold manifold where many thing become onething in the thingness of thingness and awareness of non thinking thingness becomes one with all. But only if you shut your eyes.
Click to expand...

You make my heart sing!
 
punshhh said:
The realisation of a unity of being cannot easily be explained, especially if the people you are explaining it to are of a scientific or sceptical mindset.

I could say read the yoga sutras of Patanjali and learn to meditate. I doubt I would have many takers in a place like this.

It is ironic that posters on this forum regard monism as the ontology of favour. While this is not translated into any more substantial appreciation of what one thing existing might entail. They generally stop at the extent of the reach of science at this time. Philosophy can take them a little further, but there is precious little of that here either.
Click to expand...

I am a Vedic Flyer... I have gotten a personal Mantra from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (now guess which City I live in... should not be hard now).

I have taught at the Vedic University in Fairfield Iowa...

I have read and understood the full 'Vedic Mathematics' (read the first thread, I expound quite lengthily on this).

I think you two are wannabe's.
 
punshhh said:
The realisation of a unity of being cannot easily be explained, especially if the people you are explaining it to are of a scientific or sceptical mindset.

I could say read the yoga sutras of Patanjali and learn to meditate. I doubt I would have many takers in a place like this.

It is ironic that posters on this forum regard monism as the ontology of favour. While this is not translated into any more substantial appreciation of what one thing existing might entail. They generally stop at the extent of the reach of science at this time. Philosophy can take them a little further, but there is precious little of that here either.
Click to expand...

I am not a monist.
 
realpaladin said:
I am a Vedic Flyer... I have gotten a personal Mantra from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (now guess which City I live in... should not be hard now).

I have taught at the Vedic University in Fairfield Iowa...

I have read and understood the full 'Vedic Mathematics' (read the first thread, I expound quite lengthily on this).

I think you two are wannabe's.
Click to expand...

Ah, you are acquainted with unity then, greetings.

Oh and by the way I don't want to be a Hindu, remember what I said about belief.
 
doronshadmi said:
Most of the posters in this thread try to capture it only at the level of definitions, where definitions are no more than expressed thoughts.

The poor results of this limited attitude about Unity awareness is seen over and over again by them all along this thread.
Click to expand...

Each will have their own view on unity in whatever form it takes.
 
realpaladin said:
I am a Vedic Flyer... I have gotten a personal Mantra from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (now guess which City I live in... should not be hard now).

I have taught at the Vedic University in Fairfield Iowa...

I have read and understood the full 'Vedic Mathematics' (read the first thread, I expound quite lengthily on this).

I think you two are wannabe's.
Click to expand...
Despite of what has been written by you above, your awareness is trapped at the level of thoughts (you defiantly have no direct awareness of Unity).
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
Each will have their own view on unity in whatever form it takes.
Click to expand...
Only personal view (which is only at the level of thoughts, where thoughts are only subjective) is not Unity awareness.

Unity awareness is actual only if the calm non-subjective source (which is not in itself a thought) is not lost during all possible expressions (whether they are abstract of physical).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom