Do You Have A Hidden Agenda ?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

people's energy can interlock and swirl around and people respond not quite aware of what is going on or why they are being so activated.

 

 

Right, especially when some lonely people resort to saying offensive and provocative *&%#, trying to stir up conversation by passive aggressive slaps in the face in hopes they might get a response. Most people might ask a question, however, the lonely passive aggressive is too insecure to consider other's points of view, so they just rape people of their time by sticking them and forcing them into a defense against gross hyperbole or bits of truth packed in a paragraph of lies.

[Bubbles]

It means 'to stand'

 

Latin dictionary

 

'ex' means out .... therefore 'ex-ist' means to stand out. Stand alone is slightly interpreted but a reasonable approximation.

 

latin dictionary

 

If you say this is not the meaning then please give your source(s).

 

Yes, but there is a difference between 'stand alone' and 'stand out'.

 

If 'stand alone' means existing by oneself, then it is not in the meaning of exsistere. This is in my Latin dictionary My link, the equivalent of the Oxford Latin dictionary in my native language- 1766 pages. I am sorry, I won't quote the dictionay, it has several columns for existere ,and standing alone can't be found in it.

Finding 'standing alone' in it is more than an interpretation.

 

Even in Western metaphysics, we won't find such an interpretation of this verb.

 

Actually, you don't have to believe me, just check it out at your local library...

Edited May 14, 2012 by bubbles

[Vmarco]

@ Vm

 

"The Tao gives rise to all form, yet is has no form of its own."

 

Would the Tao not be present in those forms? animating everything?

 

could not the 0 the 1 the 2 etc all be at once? within and without

 

Is the Light, Still in the Projector, which gives rise to the image on a theaters screen, present with the form, or the celluliod. Both the celluloid and image on the screen are in time,...however, with simple observation we understand that there is no present in time.

 

How is a fulcrum present with the lever of a childrens seesaw? The lever effects its motion upon the fulcrum, and without the fulcrum, no motion would be perceived to have occurred,...but does the lever in motion have anything to do with the presence of fulcrum? When the lever ceases to move, it no longer is perceived to exist.

 

The 6 senses cannot observe the fulcrum,...the 6 senses can only observe motion. To observe the fulcrum, one must has access to the 7th and 8th consciousness,...that which is beyond the "i think."

[Bubbles]

 

If you say this is not the meaning then please give your source(s).

 

The first use ( chronologically) of the verb existere was to coming out from a place ( a house, a hiding place for eg), so the meaning is to manifest.It is still the meaning in use during the XVII century: Descartes would wrote talking about himself being in the world as if he was in a theatre : "in quo hactemus spectator existiti" which means 'I have appeared so far only as a spectator'

 

In Medevial philosophy, existere was used to say ex aliquo sistere which means being/coming from something else. The emphasis went on the filiation of a being which contradicts the idea of "standing alone".

Edited July 30, 2012 by bubbles

[Cockroach]

oh noes. He was calm and polite.

 

 

He must have a superiority complex! Lets GET HIM.

 

 

Hey. I was just asking.

 

Ive been guesting on here for a time.

 

Some of you guys want to share.

 

Some of you just want to tell us what to think.

 

I want to know how to get some good qi going.

 

Not philosophy.

 

Why are we talking Latin anyways?

[Apech]

The first use ( chronologically) of the verb existere was to coming out from a place ( a house, a hiding place for eg), so the meaning is to manifest.It is still the meaning in use during the XVII century: Descartes would wrote talking about himself being in the world as if he was in a theatre : "in quo hactemus spectator existiti" which means 'I have appeared so far only as a spectator'

 

In Medevial philosophy, existere was used to say ex aliquo sistere which means being/coming from something else. The emphasis went on the filiation of a being which contradicts the idea of "standing alone".

 

Edit: My daily job is to teach Western philosophy and metaphysics and involves reading Latin texts.

 

That's interesting thank you.

 

I see what you are saying now. But I still don't see that this definition as in coming (out) from something or its filiation negates the idea of 'standing alone'. An object exists if it stands out ... you might say an individual object emerges from the background to stand out in our perception ... it emerges to stand alone ... in the sense of apart from everything else.

 

@twinner - if you don't first agree on the definition of terms I don't see how you can have meaningful debate ... if you look at the etymology of words you get a sense of their essential meaning ... or better how they may be applied meaningfully. That's how I see it anyway.

[Cockroach]

The first use ( chronologically) of the verb existere was to coming out from a place ( a house, a hiding place for eg), so the meaning is to manifest.It is still the meaning in use during the XVII century: Descartes would wrote talking about himself being in the world as if he was in a theatre : "in quo hactemus spectator existiti" which means 'I have appeared so far only as a spectator'

 

In Medevial philosophy, existere was used to say ex aliquo sistere which means being/coming from something else. The emphasis went on the filiation of a being which contradicts the idea of "standing alone".

 

Edit: My daily job is to teach Western philosophy and metaphysics and involves reading Latin texts.

 

Ha! ha! Guess you won that one. You read latin!

[eye_of_the_storm]

Cool Bubbles! would have liked to study philosophy / the fine arts etc at uni - wasn't practical though apparently

 

lesson number 1 = go your own way

Edited May 14, 2012 by White Wolf Running On Air

[eye_of_the_storm]

Is the Light, Still in the Projector, which gives rise to the image on a theaters screen, present with the form, or the celluliod. Both the celluloid and image on the screen are in time,...however, with simple observation we understand that there is no present in time.

 

How is a fulcrum present with the lever of a childrens seesaw? The lever effects its motion upon the fulcrum, and without the fulcrum, no motion would be perceived to have occurred,...but does the lever in motion have anything to do with the presence of fulcrum? When the lever ceases to move, it no longer is perceived to exist.

 

The 6 senses cannot observe the fulcrum,...the 6 senses can only observe motion. To observe the fulcrum, one must has access to the 7th and 8th consciousness,...that which is beyond the "i think."

 

your making comparison between a film projector and the Great Tao?

 

I guess I want to be a director then

[Bubbles]

That's interesting thank you.

 

I see what you are saying now. But I still don't see that this definition as in coming (out) from something or its filiation negates the idea of 'standing alone'. An object exists if it stands out ... you might say an individual object emerges from the background to stand out in our perception ... it emerges to stand alone ... in the sense of apart from everything else.

 

 

I understand better what you are saying.

 

What you write is true as long as you keep it into the perception viewpoint. But it is only valid in the perceptive realm . When you take a photo, you focus on some object that stands alone, in the sense of being apart and separate from everything else, but you know that the background is necessary for it to stand out and be perceived, it is a relative being.

 

 

So “standing alone” in the sense of being apart from everything else is acceptable but only in a relative sense. To manifest oneself, a background and an horizon are necessary otherwise, the one that is manifesting itself out by itself, as an absolute reality causa sui /cause by iself, and this is only valid for an absolute being (= God in monotheism).

 

This is very well summarize by what Spinoza writes in Ethics, Part 1, axiom 1:

 

Omnia, quae sunt, vel in se, vel in, alio sunt

 

translated as : Everything that is/which exists, is/ exists either in itself, or in something else

 

Only an absolute being can exist in itself, which means that nothing caused it to be/exist but itself (causa sui). In this sense it can stand alone.

 

If something’s existence can be traced back to another being, then it can’t stand alone, it is linked to what causes it to be. This is the idea of filiation that pervades all uses of existere in Medieval philosophy and after.

Edited May 14, 2012 by bubbles

[Apech]

[Bubbles]

Ah! I see. That's the opposite of what I meant by 'alone' and I have no idea what Vmarco meant of course. He will tells us probably.

 

I think there are two ways of understanding 'to be' ... just to be in and of itself without necessarily any contingent function/activity/form this is the preserve of the absolute. But to be or exist as in 'there is a tree' then this is a 'standing out' of a particular form or function as distinct from anything else. I understand that perhaps a tree cannot be 'alone' = all one since it is dependent on causes to exist. While the absolute can be 'all one' but not in the sense of one thing ... but in the sense of 'one and all' as there is no-thing else.

 

The idea of being as 'standing alone' can be found in the ancient greek term as used by Aristotle ousia which points to the essential being of something as an ontological unit, which can be apart from everything else, which the scholastics will later call haecceity (what one is said to be when taken in itself).

 

But the latin term used for this is essentia (essence) and not existere (existence).In an empirical viewpoint, we equate to be and to exist. But all the Metaphysical thinking can be summarized as the effort to know what should we exactly understand under the term be ( to on in Greek) .

 

To do that a distinction has been made between the essence of a being and its existence and the existence has been subordinated to the essence because the essence has taken in almost all the weight of the reality and the identity of the being, which lead to idealism.

 

The essence says what the identity of a being is, the existence is the unfolding of the essence and is under causes and conditions.

 

This is of course far more complicated than what I write about it because during all the century, each philosopher has given some specific way to think the internal relationships between be, existence and essence.

Edited May 14, 2012 by bubbles

[Apech]

@bubbles

 

Thank you for this reply - very illuminating.

 

@Vmarco

 

What did you mean by exist = stand alone ???

[eye_of_the_storm]

@ bubbles

 

off topic: minor thing / do you think english is an evolution of language or devolution?

 

all ancient languages seem to have a system - roots branch tree? + some have mathematical...

 

some believe that english was created // or later on manipulated to distort/ corrupt the mind of man ... subtle subconscious ways ... but we see it in everyday things

 

like for example the word heal = get better

 

but heel a word sounding exactly the same, relating to the foot / or as in heel < obey... become subservient etc

 

also say credit which usually means +++ now = debt ---

 

but the subconscious mind will hold both concepts both heal and heel? perhaps = result can not be pure... the concept / symbol is corrupt?

 

maybe another thread? if you would like to start? I dont know what peoples interest would be

 

mind games VVVV

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/23616-language-lexikos-lexis-legein/

Edited May 14, 2012 by White Wolf Running On Air

[Basher]

@ bubbles

 

off topic: minor thing / do you think english is an evolution of language or devolution?

 

all ancient languages seem to have a system - roots branch tree? + some have mathematical...

 

some believe that english was created // or later on manipulated to distort/ corrupt the mind of man ... subtle subconscious ways ... but we see it in everyday things

...............................................

 

 

maybe another thread? if you would like to start? I dont know what peoples interest would be

 

mind games

 

 

 

Definitely the subject for another Thread IMHO... far too interesting reading about all these Agendas & Egos on this one LOL

 

 

Basher (native speaker of English)

[phore]

Cultivating the agendaless agenda.

[Bubbles]

@bubbles

 

Thank you for this reply.

 

 

I am sorry it took me so much time to understand what you were aiming at.

My command of english is not good enough to allow me writing long answers and clear ones on abstract topics. happily some will say!

 

Take care.

[三江源]

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=_tm-1yRZtQg

[Vmarco]

[三江源]

How do we know what Love in Action would be, in every instance. Love doesnt equal passivity. Love is a decision and an action. The choice of action is a variable.

 

To assume that punitive action is not love.... how can that assumption know that it is valid?

 

The intent behind choice of action is a key.

[Cockroach]

@ rainbowvein

 

Yipeee I've been quoted!!!!!

 

It was not my hidden agenda for this to happen but it is now.

[Apech]

I am sorry it took me so much time to understand what you were aiming at.

My command of english is not good enough to allow me writing long answers and clear ones on abstract topics. happily some will say!

 

Take care.

 

I totally misunderstood your first post. BUT your English is better than most. Totally clear and lucid. If you wish to share any more philosophical gems please do!

[Vmarco]

How do we know what Love in Action would be, in every instance. Love doesnt equal passivity. Love is a decision and an action. The choice of action is a variable.

 

To assume that punitive action is not love.... how can that assumption know that it is valid?

 

The intent behind choice of action is a key.

 

Absolute love is not a choice; it has no opposite. Absolute love cannot be sent. Oops! I was banished from this forum once for discussing such a taboo subject.

 

 

In the same way ordinary people justify rallying for Peace, they also promote the activity of Sending Love, unaware that they are, in actuality, psychically attacking others through their conditioned Thought Forms.

 

Yes, they most likely have the best of intentions, that is, from their point of view, but from Love's point of view, this undertaking is totally irresponsible, in fact, it is as a psychic rape,...the violation of another with one's personal desires.

 

There is only one thing, and one thing only, that precipitates the so-called act of Sending Love, and that is to "get" (period).

 

The personal agenda of Sending Love, the invading of anothers space, is not Love. Love is seeing Spirit in everything,...whereas "Sending" implies that the Sender thinks Love is lacking.

 

So how does one share the Unconditionality of Love? Simply by letting go of the barriers and belief patterns that have been built against it,...and through that implosion, Love will effortlessly spring its resplendent mystery as an Unconditional ex-pression.

 

Those people who have a personal agenda to send love, are surely unaware of what they are doing,...which in essence are psychically attacking others,...raping,...psychic rape,...the violation of another with one's personal neurotic desires.

 

These "sending" rapists are in it for one thing, and one thing only,...TO GET. These agendas,...these unsolicited invasions on others,...is something I really don't understand. Perhaps it's a patriarchial thing. Anyway,...sending love to someone is one of the most ignorant things,...for some reason, those rapists who do it, must feel that love is somehow lacking,...go figure!

 

The only thing lacking is the honesty to seek and find all the barriers built against love.

 

"All the joy the world contains

Has come through wishing happiness for others.

All the misery the world contains

Has come through wanting pleasure for oneself."

Shantideva

Edited May 14, 2012 by Vmarco

[thelerner]

Absolute love is not a choice; it has no opposite. Absolute love cannot be sent. Oops! I was bannished from this forum once for discussing such a taboo subject.

I have a hard time believing you were 'banished' due to love absolute or otherwise. It usually takes repetitive nastiness and personal insulting.

 

The mods can be on occasion strict, but I've never known them to be capricious or anti-love.

Edited May 14, 2012 by thelerner

[Vmarco]

I have a hard time believing you were 'banished' due to love absolute or otherwise. It usually takes repetitive nastiness and personal insulting.

 

The mods can be on occasion strict, but I've never known them to be capricious or anti-love.

 

I was banished for saying to send love is akin to rape. Although this is an impersonal statement, at least two members thought that I was attacking them personally as being rapists. So I was banished for 30 days.

 

I find the members at TTB to be a good representation of society-at-large,...especially the mob-like groupthink in defending particular beliefs they cling to for their identity,...like 86% of Americans coming unglued in 2002 when the 9th District Court said that the "The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion,...not only were there calls for the death of those Judges, but on the following day the Senate approved a resolution expressing support for the impermissible government endorsement of religion in Pledge of Allegiance. The resolution passed 99-0.

 

Few Americans realize that "it is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" J Krishnamurti