Karl

I do not doubt that this is your belief. That is objective reality. If you saw yourself in her then what was looking at her ? You don't have two consciousnesses. You imagined it. I would say that you can get a sort of emotional transference and this is very obvious in crowds. I don't know the mechanisms, pheromones, body language whatever. Anyway, when working with clients it was necessary to encourage deep empathy and sometimes we shared a common emotional bond. It's immensely strong. We did a few exercises during practitioner training, in which a group of us guys sat in a circle and fed the entire group positive commentary.....blew my socks off.

I prefer to point at things, but I'm kind of crude like that.

You don't, that doesn't mean I don't. You are self not 'all' is self. Consciousness is not connected, we are not all one. Things exist apart from consciousness. If you want to define universal constants as truths then you must do that first. You must use experimental induction. You want to learn the nature of things then that is the tool. I don't need to know the nature of things, just as you probably don't need to know the contents of the 17th edition wiring regulations. I can extrapolate from first principles and its sufficient. You don't have a 'subjective mind' luckily you were born with the faculty of reason. Subjectivity is fine where it rests. If you want to compare the flavours of beer, or the sound of an instrument then we can convey that between us in whatever fashion.

No. You misconstrue space, there is no defined space in thought. No dimension at all, so what would make you think it was shared ? Again, no it is not possible to have the same consciousness. If you ever experience it let me know ;-)

I don't wish to sail anywhere, as there is no where to sail to, or from, so there is no problem. Neither do I wish you to sail anywhere unless that's your will. :-) either way is fine. We could discuss other things to take your mind off all these tasks you have found to do. Once, I sailed far from the shore, so far that I ran out of sea and boat. Far enough out you get perspective. Then i saw it was an illusion all along.

'At' or 'in' which ? I assume the relective surface. I see the mirror. I can focus to see an image of whatever is in front of the mirror. I'm happy to call it a reflection as that's common. We can juice that up if you want :-)

We are not one. There is no collective. Just as Mars has gravity and Jupiter have gravity, we affect each other's orbits, but we are not shared.

Well a proof is a proof you can't get more certain than that. I see a cartoon with a rabbit and a large ACME weight. :-)

Thank you for the encouraging words on my writing style they are appreciated. I would have got rid of them as my editor :-) such is hindsight a beautiful thing, but it was my first child you know. I love it despite its faults but have no illusions of its capacity or capability. Oh yes, I wouldn't attempt that kind of philosophy again, surely like a (very) bad poet :-) 'Revising my views' I wouldn't put it quite like that, I don't see it as past, present and future, as separate things. It's just flow. Once the river was just rain and was a very poor sort of a river. I'm glad you don't feel betrayed, then there is no need for forgiveness. You are you and I am I and we can meet on the quite patch of land where neither flies a pennant. They need to gain there own synthesis :-) I'm not about to do it for them and nor could I. I am happy they are happy.

Things are happening fast and slow all the time. I don't understand 'too fast' unless it's contextual. If you are saying is it possible to make a poor logical argument, permit certain fallacies, then yes that is certainly true. This forum abounds with it. Logic and intelligence are not necessarily one and the same. You can be as thick as mud like I am and still be an adequate logician, you can also be extremely intelligent in the way we mean it these days, but be a practical dunce where logic is concerned. Logic, though innate, must be earned.

No. I have never experienced them. I have tried to tell you that I do not experience the universe as you do. If you want to lapse into poetic allegory then we can do that, it's equally fine, but really, it's not good to mix your drinks. One or the other, but not both.

That's why 'couldnt' then ;-)

All men are stubbornStosh is a man Therefore stosh is stubborn. Valid.

You like what you like then. It's nice to know, it's a hateful thing when you don't know if you like what you like, because then you might actually dislike what you think you like and that would be a mistake that couldn't be unmade.

Well there isn't such a beast as a logical 'thing'. Man has the faculty of logic through conscious reasoning. The elements are grasped by that, as objective perceptual realities. They exist because they are existent.

None of the above.

Hey go molest Marblehead or Seeker of Wisdom they seem equally stubborn. Why pick on me. :-) 'Karl is stubborn' is that premise or conclusion and how did you arrive at it ? All men are mortal Aristotle is a man Therefore Aristotle is mortal.

That's how it is then that's how it is. That is objective reality Nickolai. I told you the book was from an earlier time, a snapshot, a bread crumb trail. You asked 'what happens next'? surely then you assumed that it was Incomplete ? Are you angry because it seemed like I lied to you ? That you felt I broke a trust ? Is that why you mention forgiveness for my actions?

You can't have an experience of consciousness. You are conscious of experiences. Consciousness cannot be conscious of itself. Anytime you say 'felt' 'feel' 'feeling' 'a knowing' etc then it's time to probe. Who is the knower. That's direct Inquiry and a bit lumpy in that it can lead to the thought 'all this is not real', but it's a path for some.

I'm not saying anymore as I see that you and seeker of wisdom are objectivist and I'm now redundant. Good :-)

I'm not sure about the 'bery' time :-) but that's just perfect.

It isn't in what you say Nikolai. It doesn't matter if you believe it's true or, believe it's rubbish. The paradox only exists as long as you let it. You hold two conflicting premises. Of course my words have a vulgar consistency for you. Ignore the book, I wrote it when I thought as you do now. I was showing only that this is the process like one half of a journey. It is objective reality that you believe what you believe is true, or believe what you believe is subjective nonsense. The content doesn't matter. I said before its either the red or the blue pill. You either want to know objective reality, or you want to stay in the subjective program of the Matrix. That is something you have to chose. Not everyone likes reality, that's an objective truth for you. As Cypher said "ignorance can be bliss", he despised everything about the real world, it was miserable experience for him and he hated Morpheus for doing it to him. He said Morpheus had lied to make him take the red pill, he said, if he had known, he would have told him to shove it up his back side. Do you understand why my words are vulgar to you ? They are poison to your beautiful subjective dream, bitter, harsh, blunt. I couldnt blame you for taking the blue pill.

Are we going to argue coherently and logically this time? If you are going to go off into salmon and dogs I'm out-amusing though it was I much prefer George Carlin or Bill Hicks.

You say that this is true and yet you don't believe in objective reality Nikolai ? I will demonstrate: These are the things you believe right ? If I said that you were wrong and that actually you didn't believe those things at all, you were just pretending to, then I guess your reply would be along the lines of "I absolutely do believe what I'm saying to be accurate, true and authentic" Would that be reasonable? I'm not arguing here about your assertions themselves, only on your belief in those assertions. So, now if I ask you to prove that you believe these things-not the things themselves, but just your beliefs in them. If I effectively called you an outright liar and asked you to prove to me that you did believe them, then how would you do it ? You would say (I hallucinate here, because we aren't going to get very far at this rate) something like "I know what I believe, I believe what I believe so don't you dare call me a liar" Now you see what you are really saying is 'a thing is a thing and nothing other' 'I believe what I believe and not something other than what I believe' You assert that this is objective reality. QED

This really is excellent, I can clearly see that you agree entitely in order that you offer that argument.