mewtwo Posted August 29, 2010 So the statue does not exist because we are the statue. and the statue is us. Agree disagree? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fizix Posted August 30, 2010 (edited) So the statue does not exist because we are the statue. and the statue is us. Agree disagree? Agree, but the Oneness of the statue cannot be conveyed in words to the inexperienced with any success or hope of true comprehension....as since the statue does not exist it is unnameable.... for to shed light for a sleeping brother unto 10,000 things to reveal One statue is to attempt building a pyramid from the top down. Edited August 30, 2010 by fizix Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Encephalon Posted August 30, 2010 So the statue does not exist because we are the statue. and the statue is us. Agree disagree? I would have to disagree, given that hydrogen is the most common element in the known universe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
betwixter Posted August 30, 2010 (edited) - Edited September 12, 2010 by betwixter Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beoman Posted August 30, 2010 So the statue does not exist because we are the statue. and the statue is us. Agree disagree? Statue? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beoman Posted August 30, 2010 So the statue does not exist because we are the statue. and the statue is us. Agree disagree? Oh statue and the clay? This seems really silly. "Statue" is just a name for a combination of phenomena. So is "clay". The phenomenon of a given statue of clay being in a place can be viewed as either there being a statue there, or a bunch of clay there, or a statue made of clay. The statue exists in a relative sense, but doesn't exist in an absolute sense. I think saying "we are the statue and the statue is us" is confusing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 30, 2010 I disagree, of course. Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheWhiteRabbit Posted August 30, 2010 in thought everything exists therefore the perception is wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 30, 2010 in thought everything exists therefore the perception is wrong. The perception can never be wrong. The understanding of or the conclusion drawn from the perception may or may not be wrong. Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheWhiteRabbit Posted August 30, 2010 The perception can never be wrong. The understanding of or the conclusion drawn from the perception may or may not be wrong. Peace & Love! hmm kind of like light in a tunnel or radio frequency photons moving through a wire... Interesting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 30, 2010 hmm kind of like light in a tunnel or radio frequency photons moving through a wire... Interesting. Yeah, something like that. The light in the tunnel radiates out from its source to a given distance. The further away from the source we get the dimmer the light 'appears' to be. But its brightness has not changed, only the appearance based on our perception depending where we are relative to where the light is. Same with the energy from a radio transmitting station. When we are close we hear it loud and clear but as we travel away from the source the weaker the signal becomes until we reach the point of no signal - silence. (But the station is still transmitting.) Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted August 30, 2010 The thought/idea of the statue is "you". But it's not the whole "you". Of course you exist or you wouldn't be writing on an internet forum. I realise I'm leaving the door wide open for the "r" word (haven't heard it in a while) and I don't think we need to go there. Just because we use a word over and over again doesn't make it any more or less "so" than another word. Well, except it does. And here's why IMO we keep getting confused about very important things. I was thinking of changing my name every day for a week to see what happens. Today I ask you all to call me "Olive" (the only reason I thought of that was because I am wearing an olive-coloured t-shirt.) But I won't be later on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 30, 2010 But I won't be later on. Hi Olive, Won't be what later on? Won't be Olive or won't be wearing the t-shirt? Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
betwixter Posted August 30, 2010 (edited) - Edited September 12, 2010 by betwixter Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted August 30, 2010 Thanks! What's really insane is I am still wearing the same olive t-shirt. i had intended not to and then a series of events "forced" me to conform to the continuous wearing of said t-shirt. Of course I could have gone change at any point today, but it's late enough and kind of ridiculous to change when I'm quite comfortable as I am. I even fell asleep in my t-shirt, I was sooo comfortable. Although maybe I was just tired. Now I'm not sure. Reminds me of that story about the guy who meditated as an ox and then couldn't get his horns through the door. Imagine I was obliged to wear the same olive t-shirt everyday for the rest of my life? that would be horrible! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted August 31, 2010 "I was really hoping Olive was referring to the hopelessly dependent and relentlessly loyal Olive of the Popeye persuasion. Popeye, truly enlightened...."I yams whats I ams, and dats all that I yams" and Olive, the Holy Fire and the desire." Maybe it was? Unfortunately that wouldn't be up to "me" by definition. I was only reporting what I was conscious of Wow! A "Shiva/Shakti" pairing in a cartoon! Neat! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
betwixter Posted August 31, 2010 (edited) - Edited September 12, 2010 by betwixter Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 31, 2010 (edited) Will this do? Edited December 6, 2015 by Marblehead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted August 31, 2010 Thank you! Today I would like you all to call me "Alfred". In fact I spent some time yesterday thinking why I wanted that as a name today but couldn't find any reason at all There must be some obscure reference involved that's hiding out in my past somewhere. It seems archaic as a name. Thank you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 31, 2010 Thank you! Today I would like you all to call me "Alfred". In fact I spent some time yesterday thinking why I wanted that as a name today but couldn't find any reason at all There must be some obscure reference involved that's hiding out in my past somewhere. It seems archaic as a name. Thank you. Hi Alfred, Yeah, probably something in your unretrievable past. A love lost? A wicked uncle? A second grade teacher who impressed you? Who know what lies in our deepest areas of our mind? Of course, I thought of Alfred E. Newman when I saw the name. "What? Me worry?" Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
betwixter Posted August 31, 2010 (edited) - Edited September 12, 2010 by betwixter Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted August 31, 2010 Aaah yes... Hitchcock. Hadn't occurred to me at all! Hmm, maybe it's time to move my name-changing experiment to my own forum. MewTwo has been kind enough to let me go further in thread-jacking than I reckon I have ever done in my short existence. Thank you MewTwo _/\_ BTW, if you found yourself thinking of Alfred Hitchcock for even 2 seconds, you were him, right there! You genius you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
