Karl

Changing as we speak :-)

Then you must find a definition for the universe which isn't the universe. It's a chunked up conceptual idea. Like large, larger and largest. We cannot see the edges or every bit of the content, we can only conceptualise it. You would have to explain why the universe cannot be the way that you conceptualise it. :-) it cannot be logically different based on our cognition of it. I don't think you have a very different conception of animals, or furniture-we might argue the classifications of course-but when we come to the totality of all classifications then there can be no room for differences except experientially. A child might perceive the universe as much smaller than we do, but it will still subsume everything it knows at that point. We might class the universe as bigger or smaller depending on our experience, but we cannot avoid it's definition as the widest of all categories.

I'm talking of those that do hit the planet and survive atmospheric entry. A very large cluster of that kind of debris would scour the planets surface of all life. Certainly a big rock would do it, but a big rock is a like a man fishing with a single line. However a very large debris cloud would be like a fishing net. I think it's more likely that we fly through a field of debris -perhaps as a result of a solar system event-than it is to be hit by a large rock.

Except the universe.

Is the belief that you will reincarnate any different from the belief that you will go to heaven, or hell ? If you believe that religion is the cause of an unenlightened effect and as Lerner has pointed out, that Atheism in the form of materialism/relativism/ collectivism has produced some equally appalling results, then why do you believe new age mysticism is going to be any better ? To believe that man reincarnated is to believe in the same kind of mysticism that tells of mans decent into hell-the plane has shifted from an unknown supernatural place and substitutes a known place with supernatural human element that's all. Enlightenment comes from full knowing that you are mortal, can die and will neither return, nor go to paradise or a hell. That you had better make the most of the time you have and act rationally to gain honest values that will result in your own happiness.

Our 'work' as Churchill meant it, is done. Europe grew up. We were supposed to be caretakers not members. We must get out of the way and let them get on with turning it into the Superstate. Britain was never going to fit into a superstate. The Germans understood this, they refer to us 'Inselaffen'. It's a non sequitur to bring up Britains other conflicts. I'm not suggesting we are the peace makers, that was Churchill, but if you accept his argument then it's time to let go of the EU child and let it become what it will. We can carry on trading and allying ourselves with an EU superstate without being a cantankerous member of it. Britain has been attempting to steer the project for its own purposes and of course the aims of the USA. It was Thatcher that brought prosperity to Britain by breaking up the economic dead weight of nationalised industries and deregulating the financial sector. We saw a chance that we might dominate the EU-for it to become part of a new British Empire, but instead, it was the EU that infected Britain. If we remain then we will become an annexe to the EU and will be forced to accept the whole thing and whatever that will bring. We will not be able to change it, completely the opposite, we will not be able to support or sponsor the EU, we will be a small part of it with little influence. Outside we can be a giant of trade and influence. There is a well known saying "it's better to have someone pissing out of the tent than have them pissing into it". For the EU it is better for us to remain because we can be controlled, our place is therefore outside of the tent where we can decide for ourselves which way we piss and how far. Anyway the 23rd is coming and I strongly suspect the 24th will be the beginning of something unpleasant, whichever way the vote goes. Neither side has acquitted themselves well in this feud. It should have been a balanced debate and our PM should have made the decision instead of offering a referendum. The result will be polarising in the worst of ways. Our politicians have engaged in fear mongering of the worst kind and raised emotional terror. They have also lost the last essence of credibility. That genie isn't ever going back in its bottle. The EU itself might well be the least of our problems from the 24th onward.

It wouldn't need to be. The planet would not have required a chunk of rock to seed it and more than likely didn't, as it is a large enough chunk of rock already. I would think that life could develop from the harshest of environments, but it will not always thrive. One thing that has always puzzled me about asteroids and meteorites is the science fiction writers concern about one big chunk of rock hitting the planet, when, potentially a swarm of tiny meteors would be the equivalent of a shotgun on the surface of an apple.

We were never meant to have joined and we did support the new Europe to a greater extent than had been envisaged. I agree with that quote. We did what was necessary for the Europe to become succesful, indeed at one point it was even more succesful than Britain. However, we have done our work, Europe is a long time saved from the state of conflict in which it once rested. We need to get out of their way and let them complete it. It's time for us to heal the rest of the world.

Or learning how to articulate the argument in a clearer, simpler way. :-)

I did not say that existence needs man in order for it to exist. I'm saying that ONLY a conscious entity can know existence and only a conscious reasoning entity can identify the categories within that existence. Man without spirit is a robot, without a body, a ghost.

No. I used the ferry.

It is not required to be matter. You are aware of electricity and heat. These are energies. The engine behind these energies isn't fully understood, but that makes no difference to the existent identity of those energies. They are something. Your consciousness gives them the identity 'energy', but your consciousness does not create them. Existence is not EQUAL to identity. Existence IS identity, as consciousness IS identification. If there were no conscious beings then Existence would exist, but there would be no awareness of existence. If you are unconscious, or dead then existence is something that you no longer are. Existence and the consciousness of existence arise together. Consciousness must be conscious of something. Existence is only valid to those who are conscious of it. That existence has primacy does not in any sense devalue the experience of the conscious being that identifies itself and its place in the universe. That is why there is no duality. Rand magnificently ended the feud. She simplified it. It's so fundamental that it makes me laugh that I couldn't see what was so obvious. You are seeing duality because you do not see that both existence and consciousness arise together, but that consciousness does not create existence. However they are not seperate things, they are corollaries of each other; axiomatic twins. It is true that existence can exist without anything being conscious of it, but that's a hypothetical condition, because we ARE conscious of it. Existence is what conscious human beings call it. An existence without consciousness would not be unaware, just like a rock is not aware of itself or anything else. It is us that define the rock as being seperate-as having a unique identification. The rock does not know it is a rock, or care that it's a rock, or feel any kind of seperation from its surroundings, or any awareness of itself in any way. It's like a equation in which every part balances: 'Existence exists' is an axiomatic statement made by a conscious being. It can only be made by a conscious being because they are conscious of existing and existence. I think the light bulb moment will occur at some point and it will be a real 'kapow'. I hadn't realised that it took Leonard Peikoff almost ten years to understand what Rand was saying. It's like we have these blinders on our eyes and can't see what should be obvious.

Energy 'IS' something, it isn't non-existence. A human consciousness has first to conceptualise a chair. A chair is man-made. Existence only exists (it is just existence) without a consciousness to identify it. Recognising existence is to establish identity. Existence is identity; consciousness is identification. Those two axiomatic corrolaries are such a break through that it's easy to understate the truth contained within that simple statement.

Funnily enough I have. Not to Junko/Michaels home but into the Alps. Rode back to UK in one hit as well. Me and the Ducati Monster M1100S

Full stop

That's an equivocation on he word 'existence' MH. You can't just use the word interchangeably. Existence means existence, you are equivocating causality with existence. A chair is not 'non existent' before it is a chair. It is a chair only when it is a chair.

In my case it's the result of not being able to see straight.

I think my version is the easiest to understand-what you perceive is reality as it is. The complexity is in building a conceptual argument which disputes that simplicity. How much more pure does anyone need ? Existence is identity; consciousness is identification. What the Tao statement says (as I read it) is that existence exists, but existence is the result of non-existence. The problem here-beside the illogical syllogism-is that it completely ignores conscious identification and yet it should be obvious that such a syllogism can neither have been created nor understood without conscious identification of it.

I have an excuse, I've spent the last 8 hours blasting around the English countryside in the company of seven motorcycles and I'm tired out. :-)

I'm avoiding unpleasantness, it's definitely not what I most want.

Junko, you unintentional misunderstandings are a truly joyous thing.

A very old spice, like cinnamon but a lot more Tumericy

What about Tumeric ?

Its believing that reality is variable that is the problem. You are trying to imagine a different reality and are evading what is right in front of you. Only axioms remain beyond further scrutiny because they are the bedrock on which everything else rests. You can't go beyond consciousness, existence or the universe for instance, because all understanding is dependent on them and they, not on anyone understanding them.