et-thoughts Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) Yep. And the realist can always empty the glass of water and fill it with some bourbon and coke if the opportunity presents itself. That's the beauty of an empty cup or empty room. Filling either is virtually without limits. But then, we wouldn't want to fill it too full because then there would be no room for anything else. When I make a cup of tea I always leave room to add some honey and Southern Comfort. The realists would realize that there are no empty cups nor empty rooms... when the realist empties the glass of water the realist realizes the glass if full of air... the delusional would deny this evident fact... and be part of the optimists and pessimists encompassing group... Yes one can refill either without limits by taking contents out while placing new ones in... the room is always full! edited to add ... the question is full of what? Edited August 20, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 20, 2012 edited to add ... the question is full of what? I won't post my initial thought response. Hehehe. There is no emptiness. (I apologize to all my Buddhist friends.) What appears to be empty is the fullness of potential. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted August 20, 2012 I won't post my initial thought response. Hehehe. There is no emptiness. (I apologize to all my Buddhist friends.) What appears to be empty is the fullness of potential. It is full of space. I cannot see the air nor emptiness but I saw space. The physical emptiness is different from the mental emptiness of Buddhism. The emptiness in the cup is not the same emptiness as in the heart of a Buddhist. The emptiness in the heart of a Buddhist is non-materialistic. The eyes of a Buddhist saw gourmet foods on the table but not in his heart. The eyes of a Buddhist saw a seductive beauty in front of him but not in his heart. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 20, 2012 The eyes of a Buddhist saw a seductive beauty in front of him but not in his heart. I would never be able to handle that one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted August 20, 2012 I would never be able to handle that one. Of course not, you are not a Buddhist but even a Taoist may not handle that sometimes. You did claim that you are a Taoist, did you...??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted August 20, 2012 It is full of space. I cannot see the air nor emptiness but I saw space. The physical emptiness is different from the mental emptiness of Buddhism. The emptiness in the cup is not the same emptiness as in the heart of a Buddhist. The emptiness in the heart of a Buddhist is non-materialistic. The eyes of a Buddhist saw gourmet foods on the table but not in his heart. The eyes of a Buddhist saw a seductive beauty in front of him but not in his heart. That you fail to see the air fills the room and thus consider the air full room empty does not change the fact that the room is completely full... yes physical emptiness differs from mental emptiness still when the mind thinks of nothing it still thinks of that something... what the eye sees, what the mind thinks, and what the heart feels and the spirit knows intertwine as a singular physical-mental-emotional-spiritual experience... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 20, 2012 Of course not, you are not a Buddhist but even a Taoist may not handle that sometimes. You did claim that you are a Taoist, did you...??? Well, I did claim that my interests are short skirts and bikinis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted August 20, 2012 Well, I did claim that my interests are short skirts and bikinis. I have the intuition that it aint the garments that interests you :-) ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) I have the intuition that it aint the garments that interests you :-) ... I think I shall not speak to this. Hehehe. BTW Leonard Cohen did an album titled "Songs From An Empty Room". Great songs if you like Bob Dylan kind of music. Edited August 20, 2012 by Marblehead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted August 20, 2012 If anyone takes the time to tell me what they are about to say is the truth I assume that they often tell lies and what is about to follow is a lie. The two of yall should re-examine whether that is a valid assumption to make.(unless they are intending to lie )Every time one makes a positive assertion ,they are telling the truth.Every time someone agrees or dissagrees with an item of fact they are attesting a truth.A person can say, they believe a thing is true ,from a position of not believing that there is a valid position to deny it. The assumption is as bogus, as the assumption ,that a person tends to look you right in the eyewhen they are telling the truth.When talking casually folks eyes often wander ,but when one is concerned about your reaction being negative , they watch your eyes so they can read you.If you dont believe me that this is TRUTH ,observe a person you know for a fact is lying like a politician or salesperson. They stare at your face unwavering nine times out of ten.( there is a bias for a person feeling guilty to look down and to the side, but since they are feeling guilt and giving it away with a "tell', they arent really the ones to watch out for anyway)I am only jumping in on this because recently you gave me a wierd reaction about not telling you any 'truths'. Im mildly offended.Stosh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted August 20, 2012 Stosh, Assuming stuff is a bit wo wei... sometimes its useful and sometimes its something else... Personally I have a hard time figuring out if someone is telling the truth or telling lies ... so I just sort of keep a lets see attitude about the matter... Sorry that you are mildly offended ... I do not recall what you refer to by "recently you gave me a wierd reaction about not telling you any 'truths'." you might have been directing that comment to marblehead... not sure just wanted to make sure... and you are always welcome to jump in and enrich these interchanges... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 21, 2012 Hi Stosh, It is not my intention to offend anyone here. However, I will never hesitate to question what has been said by someone and I have been known to call BS on a few people. We had a misunderstanding just like ET and I did a couple days ago. Mostly true what you said about lying, I think. Giving false info because the giver actually believes what they are saying is a totally different set of conditions. But if we spend our life believing everything everyone says we are going to be totally confused. We need question. We even need question the questions to see if they are valid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted August 21, 2012 Mh I thought you and Et were making a seriously erroneous assumption in posts 82 83 84 and I was caught up in the accusation. I dont care much for the indirectness ,seemingly suggested by TTC. It has a serious downside, you never get down to the truth. But there is also a lot of flack one has to accept when sticking to the truth rather than resorting to convenient lies. Ive been sticking to the truth , putting up with the defensiveness it tends to generate, and so getting classified as a habitual liar for telling it, is more than vexing. Et Yes, that part wasnt referring to you. Anyway just go back to the thread subject. The rest doesnt matter anyway Stosh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted August 21, 2012 Giving false info because the giver actually believes what they are saying is a totally different set of conditions. But if we spend our life believing everything everyone says we are going to be totally confused. We need question. We even need question the questions to see if they are valid. When someone gives false testimony, while actually believe they are saying the truth hardly changes the fact that they are making false claims, and thus lying... some hold that lying requires that one intentionally make false statement rather than just require somebody to make false statements... I also have been thinking to mention that what I state should not be taken as a personal attack... Some find being questioned offensive, some find the truth being exposed offensive, some find it insulting that someone dare question and challenge what they state, hold, believe, feel, experience... the sage sees the question as a question nothing more nothing less... sometimes worth responding some answer and sometimes responding with no answer... wo wei... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 21, 2012 When someone gives false testimony, while actually believe they are saying the truth hardly changes the fact that they are making false claims, and thus lying... some hold that lying requires that one intentionally make false statement rather than just require somebody to make false statements... I also have been thinking to mention that what I state should not be taken as a personal attack... Some find being questioned offensive, some find the truth being exposed offensive, some find it insulting that someone dare question and challenge what they state, hold, believe, feel, experience... the sage sees the question as a question nothing more nothing less... sometimes worth responding some answer and sometimes responding with no answer... wo wei... Hehehe. You would have to try really, really hard to offend me personally. Also, aren't you being a bit hard on those who speak what they believe to be the truth? Afterall, all my my truths are my truths, they may not be truths for others. Yes, there are many time in life when it is best to remain silent. (Apparently I haven't found many of those times judging by the number of posts I have made on this forum.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted August 21, 2012 (edited) When someone gives false testimony, while actually believe they are saying the truth hardly changes the fact that they are making false claims, and thus lying... some hold that lying requires that one intentionally make false statement rather than just require somebody to make false statements... I also have been thinking to mention that what I state should not be taken as a personal attack... Some find being questioned offensive, some find the truth being exposed offensive, some find it insulting that someone dare question and challenge what they state, hold, believe, feel, experience... the sage sees the question as a question nothing more nothing less... sometimes worth responding some answer and sometimes responding with no answer... wo wei... Et Making a verbal error is not "Thus lying" Decieving with intent is lying. It is attempt to escape the social fate of a truth. The bad part ,is the deception part, not the noises themselves. And some do 'hold to that' , because they see intentional deception as worse than making a mistake. (because intentional acts are by definition not mistakes, and mistakes are unintentional by definition ,it is only rational to make a distinction about it) And not responding, in order to avoid admission to being wrong,, is also an attempt to escape the social fate of a truth , and so it is a deception, and it can be just as non-virtuous as the active lie. It is just sneakier, Giving the habit a chinese name like wo wei doesnt change it into virtue either,( when the intent is not to benefit the one being avoided but rather to preserve the 'ego' of the person who clammed up.) But this subject really would make for a different thread on whether the TTC makes a stand on honesty as a virtue or whether it dodges the issue altogether. I really dont know what it says about it. Stosh Edited August 21, 2012 by Stosh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted August 21, 2012 I still don't know what this thread is all about....!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 21, 2012 I still don't know what this thread is all about....!!! This thread is all about being. The thought that we can live in this dualistic reality and still hold to singularity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted August 21, 2012 (edited) Et Making a verbal error is not "Thus lying" Decieving with intent is lying. It is attempt to escape the social fate of a truth. The bad part ,is the deception part, not the noises themselves. And some do 'hold to that' , because they see intentional deception as worse than making a mistake. (because intentional acts are by definition not mistakes, and mistakes are unintentional by definition ,it is only rational to make a distinction about it) And not responding, in order to avoid admission to being wrong,, is also an attempt to escape the social fate of a truth , and so it is a deception, and it can be just as non-virtuous as the active lie. It is just sneakier, Giving the habit a chinese name like wo wei doesnt change it into virtue either,( when the intent is not to benefit the one being avoided but rather to preserve the 'ego' of the person who clammed up.) But this subject really would make for a different thread on whether the TTC makes a stand on honesty as a virtue or whether it dodges the issue altogether. I really dont know what it says about it. Stosh Stosh, Let me know if you want us to start a new thread... regarding honesty as a virtue... In regards to making an error and intentionally making false statements ... ,it is only rational to make a distinction about it... An error would involve unintentionally mistakes... errors are pointed out and corrected... intentionally maintaining that some error is not an error involves telling lies... to other or to oneself ... (or both) you are quite right about ' not responding, in order to avoid admission to being wrong' ' it can be just as non-virtuous as the active lie. It is just sneakier'... Considering that making a claim involves intent... and that a claim is true or false depending on what happens to be its only rational to realize that not correcting a false claim and maintaining it involves an individuals intent to claim what is false (rather that what is true). The point here as I see it centers on the notion of what constitutes a lie... to me its a false statement I realize that for some its an intentional false statement... I wonder how someone can make statements without intending to make statements... BTW just for clarity sake... and to level the field... if a being tells a single lie in its existence that being is a liar once and for all... yea just about everyone is a liar by this definition... so lets not get all worked up about it... especially when by the same token the beings attain once and for all other wonderful characteristic whenever they do something once... besides when someone claims "I tell the truth" its a bit irrelevant what they been before that moment or what they may become in the next whats relevant is that they act congruent with the statement made... I mentioned wo wei because as I understand it that concept involves acting by doing or not doing according to what be appropriate to do... I know that no response is still a response... Edited August 21, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted August 21, 2012 Hehehe. You would have to try really, really hard to offend me personally. Also, aren't you being a bit hard on those who speak what they believe to be the truth? Afterall, all my my truths are my truths, they may not be truths for others. Yes, there are many time in life when it is best to remain silent. (Apparently I haven't found many of those times judging by the number of posts I have made on this forum.) Marblehead I consider that it would be a waste of my time to seek and offend someone... When I said that my statements should not be taken as a personal attack I wanted to focus on the issue at hand not the individuals involved... Why would it be a bit hard to tell the deluded that they are deluded... those who believe what is false and claim that it is true because they believe it need a reality check... :-) Yes your truth are your truth, they may or may not be the truths for others and they will be true or false depending on two things 1- what you hold to believe to be and 2- what happened to be... the realist in me appeals to the realist in you :-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted August 21, 2012 I still don't know what this thread is all about....!!! This thread focus on exploring and determining What does the sage seeks to convey: a dualistic natural manner(Wu Wei) a singularitynatural manner(Wu Wei) a bit more than the alternatives put forth... we seem to be going round and round the central point... personally I stipulate that there is singular reality and that we should seek... while 'avoiding' or transcending dualistic ways. The sage acts naturally (and does what need be done which may involve doing and not doing). One example of transcending dualistic ways involves realizing that the pessimist and the optimists are both delusional and it is the realists that gets to see the full cup... Hope this helps clarify the issue here... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted August 21, 2012 Why would it be a bit hard to tell the deluded that they are deluded... those who believe what is false and claim that it is true because they believe it need a reality check... :-) Yes your truth are your truth, they may or may not be the truths for others and they will be true or false depending on two things 1- what you hold to believe to be and 2- what happened to be... the realist in me appeals to the realist in you :-) Yes, I know you are a realist. I haven't been deluded. Hehehe. Thing is though, once we hold to a belief we start using it as a security blanket. Whenever anyone tries to take away their blanket they protest strongly. In order to change a false understanding another has one must not mess with the blanket. First the person must be given a replacement blanket. If they accept the additional blanket then perhaps the old blanket can be lost or put into the washing machine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted August 21, 2012 Yes, I know you are a realist. I haven't been deluded. Hehehe. Thing is though, once we hold to a belief we start using it as a security blanket. Whenever anyone tries to take away their blanket they protest strongly. In order to change a false understanding another has one must not mess with the blanket. First the person must be given a replacement blanket. If they accept the additional blanket then perhaps the old blanket can be lost or put into the washing machine. Oh I do don't TRY to take away their security blanket or the magic carpet they stand upon .. I just point out that it be an imaginary thing that they hold on to... :-) poof its gone! and there is no more a solid foundation to stand upon or a certain thing to hold on... time to learn to stand on their own, walk on air... fly fly fly... :-) ! Of course when I 'invite' them to walk across the precipice, hover cross the abyss, most will strongly protest and refuse... convinced they will fall into the rift (which causes them to fall into the rift)... self-fulfilling prophecies can be a blessing or a curse... and become quite slippery slope that can only be avoided through a complete transformation... I believe you actually understand quite well what I mean... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted August 21, 2012 Mh I thought you and Et were making a seriously erroneous assumption in posts 82 83 84 and I was caught up in the accusation. Can you elaborate on the assumption you perceived? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) Oh I do don't TRY to take away their security blanket or the magic carpet they stand upon .. I just point out that it be an imaginary thing that they hold on to... :-) poof its gone! and there is no more a solid foundation to stand upon or a certain thing to hold on... time to learn to stand on their own, walk on air... fly fly fly... :-) ! Of course when I 'invite' them to walk across the precipice, hover cross the abyss, most will strongly protest and refuse... convinced they will fall into the rift (which causes them to fall into the rift)... self-fulfilling prophecies can be a blessing or a curse... and become quite slippery slope that can only be avoided through a complete transformation... I believe you actually understand quite well what I mean... OK those that accept the invitation and challenge convinced that they will fly across the rift (which causes them to fly across the rift)... may want to comment... self-fulfilling prophecies can be a blessing :-)... those that become light as a feather can walk upwards any slippery slope without needing to avoid it nor change it at all... even if the foundations vanish some can hover in place as the complete transformation took place way before reaching the abyss ... some tread lightly letting go of what drags them down... I believe you actually understand quite well what I mean... Given the change in responses taking place and the interchanges topics it seems to me that this thread is winding down... unless someone cares to push it a bit... Edited August 23, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
