Tao particle

[gatito]

Could be Painful/Dangerous, especially if you have short legs or a high fence !

 

Yes, don't try that one at home without proper instruction and supervision.

 

The best way to do it is to stand in the (open) gateway.

Edited September 3, 2012 by gatito

[Marblehead]

The best way to do it is to stand in the (open) gateway.

But then people wouldn't know whether you are coming or going.

[gatito]

But then people wouldn't know whether you are coming or going.

 

That would depend entirely on which side of the fence they were standing.

[Stosh]

Dont worry , 'dull and boring'is quite popular

Havent you ever watched golf?

Stosh

[Marblehead]

Havent you ever watched golf?

Stosh

I tried being a caddy when I was a young kid in order to earn a little spending money. Most of those bags were bigger and heavier than I was. I did not enjoy that experience at all!!! And I still don't like golf!

 

Edit to add:

 

We have done an excellent job at taking this thread off topic, if it really had a topic to begin with.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Marblehead

[gatito]

I tried being a caddy when I was a young kid in order to earn a little spending money. Most of those bags were bigger and heavier than I was. I did not enjoy that experience at all!!! And I still don't like golf!

 

Edit to add:

 

We have done an excellent job at taking this thread off topic, if it really had a topic to begin with.

 

Perhaps this will help to put it back on track?

 

What is the smallest possible thing in the universe?

 

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19434856

[Stosh]

A golfball on a tee?

A Mc D's fries?

Just kidding

The universe is one thing so

the smallest thing is a universe!

On the other hand..

You dont believe the objective universe

is real since it cant be verified directly

 

So that would be a trick question

 

Stosh

Edited September 4, 2012 by Stosh

[gatito]

A golfball on a tee?

A Mc D's fries?

Just kidding

The universe is one thing so

the smallest thing is a universe!

On the other hand..

You dont believe the objective universe

is real since it cant be verified directly

 

So that would be a trick question

 

Stosh

 

No.

[Marblehead]

From the article:

 

"In the end, the answers will be found in experiments, ..."

 

But then, we (they) may be asking the wrong questions and the answers will never be found.

[gatito]

From the article:

 

"In the end, the answers will be found in experiments, ..."

 

But then, we (they) may be asking the wrong questions and the answers will never be found.

 

Most "spiritual/philosophical" questions certainly seem to stem from false axioms.

[Stosh]

If the axioms are subjective as in

philo-spiritual subjects

they cannot be truly

declared false.

 

And yes you did too say

that the material objective world wasnt real!

Stosh

[gatito]

If the axioms are subjective as in

philo-spiritual subjects

they cannot be truly

declared false.

 

I disagree.

 

It's axiomatic that you know that you exist.

 

It would be a false axiom to state that you do not.

 

Q.E.D.

 

And yes you did too say

that the material objective world wasnt real!

Stosh

 

I thought that I'd made it clear that my position is that it depends on what is your definition of "real".

[Stosh]

Well whos definition of real are you going by?

That I believe my mind exists is only verifiable

conclusively to me.

The same goes for you.

Things one can prove to others are objectively real

things known really only to ourselves is subjectively real

 

We went over that and we have opposite takes on it.

I see both situations as real but different realms

You said that the observable material world couldnt be

proven as being real ( not only you but many folks agree to that)

 

Unless I misunderstood your point about personal observation and

verification ... which is possible.

 

Just pick one and we will see how it falls out,,

 

1) the material world is real

2) the subjective world in your head is real

3)they are both of equal validity

4)neither are of validity ,equally

 

Stosh

Edited September 4, 2012 by Stosh

[gatito]

Well whos definition of real are you going by?

That I believe my mind exists is only verifiable

conclusively to me.

The same goes for you.

Things one can prove to others are objectively real

things known really only to ourselves is subjectively real

 

We went over that and we have opposite takes on it.

I see both situations as real but different realms

You said that the observable material world couldnt be

proven as being real ( not only you but many folks agree to that)

 

Unless I misunderstood your point about personal observation and

verification ... which is possible.

 

Just pick one and we will see how it falls out,,

 

1) the material world is real

2) the subjective world in your head is real

3)they are both of equal validity

4)neither are of validity ,equally

 

Stosh

 

You seem to think that I'm interested in trying to "convert" you.

 

I'm not.

[Stosh]

Im not saying you are trying to convert me,

I see nothing at all of the type in your posts there.

 

I am saying ,you need to pick what frame of reference

you believe is true. So that you may be understood.

 

Stosh

[gatito]

Im not saying you are trying to convert me,

I see nothing at all of the type in your posts there.

 

I am saying ,you need to pick what frame of reference

you believe is true. So that you may be understood.

 

Stosh

 

No Stosh - I don't need to pick a frame of reference.

 

If you have a clear question (which interests me) I'll do my best to answer it.

 

That's all.

[Marblehead]

And yes you did too say

that the material objective world wasnt real!

Stosh

Well, I never said that!!!

[Stosh]

Gatito

Did you not start with the Question of what the smallest particle in the universe was? (by reference to the article)

In order to answer that question the frame of reference is required regarding the span of 'reality'.

The very clear question I already posed was what your opinion was regarding what reality was.

It is seeming that it is not a question which you are interested in answering.

Since you are not interested in answering the neccesary query , the question is rendered impossible to answer.. therefore it is a trick question without doubt.

 

As far as the 'I think therefore I am' scenario, which is fundamental to western philosopy

It incorporates the conclusion that since something is thinking, it must be ME that is thinking it.

 

This is debatable, since one can see there is another possibility, the Tao is the thing that can be doing 'experiencing' and it is a subset of the Tao that erroneously has the illusion of an individual 'I' that is thinking...(that would be me or you or marblehead ).

 

So if meditating - wu wei etc is going to get one in touch with the Tao, the process would be removing the illusion of the individual self , and resolve one back to the primordial experiencing of the uncluttered tao.

 

If a person sticks to the 'I think therefore I am' scenario, then one could only conclude that when they stopped thinking there would be nothing of themselves left not even awareness, it would then be self destructive rather than fulfilling to meditate and act wu wei or Zazen etc.

 

No you dont have to pick a frame of reference

It just didnt seem like a subject one would be uncomfortable about

Thats all.

 

Stosh

Edited September 4, 2012 by Stosh

[gatito]

Gatito

Did you not start with the Question of what the smallest particle in the universe was? (by reference to the article)

 

No. I responded to MH comments about the thread having gone off-topic with a link to an article that was titled "What is the smallest possible thing in the universe?"

 

In order to answer that question the frame of reference is required regarding the span of 'reality'.

The very clear question I already posed was what your opinion was regarding what reality was.

It is seeming that it is not a question which you are interested in answering.

Since you are not interested in answering the neccesary query , the question is rendered impossible to answer.. therefore it is a trick question without doubt.

 

Not a trick question - as I said, not even a question - just the title of an article that I thought might be of interest to anyone interested in discussing the Tao Particle (which doesn't include me ) .

 

As far as the 'I think therefore I am' scenario, which is fundamental to western philosopy

It incorporates the conclusion that since something is thinking, it must be ME that is thinking it.

 

This is debatable, since one can see there is another possibility, the Tao is the thing that can be doing 'experiencing' and it is a subset of the Tao that erroneously has the illusion of an individual 'I' that is thinking...(that would be me or you or marblehead ).

 

So if meditating - wu wei etc is going to get one in touch with the Tao, the process would be removing the illusion of the individual self , and resolve one back to the primordial experiencing of the uncluttered tao.

 

If a person sticks to the 'I think therefore I am' scenario, then one could only conclude that when they stopped thinking there would be nothing of themselves left not even awareness, it would then be self destructive rather than fulfilling to meditate and act wu wei or Zazen etc.

 

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. I don't subscribe to the idea that "I think, therefore I am". As far as I'me concerned, Decartes got it back-to-front.

 

No you dont have to pick a frame of reference

It just didnt seem like a subject one would be uncomfortable about

Thats all.

 

Stosh

 

I'm not uncomfortable Stosh; I'm just not interested in picking a frame of reference. Sorry.

Edited September 4, 2012 by gatito

[Stosh]

Gatito

When I gave my answers about the smallest particle

You said No

That means your opinion was that I was not correct.

Thats participating in the dialog of the subject

and indicates a degree of interest,

at least for telling me I'm wrong.

 

Ive said what I want to about the rest of it

I guess you have too.

Your brief responses indicate I am expending too

much effort at communication here.

 

Stosh

[gatito]

Gatito

When I gave my answers about the smallest particle

You said No

That means your opinion was that I was not correct.

Thats participating in the dialog of the subject

and indicates a degree of interest,

at least for telling me I'm wrong.

 

I was doing you the courtesy of informing you that it was not a trick question.

 

Ive said what I want to about the rest of it

I guess you have too.

Your brief responses indicate I am expending too

much effort at communication here.

 

Stosh

 

I'd say that you're spot-on there Stosh.

[Stosh]

[gatito]

[Marblehead]

I'm glad you guys worked that out.

 

Now, where did I put my Tao Particle?

[gatito]

I'm glad you guys worked that out.

 

Me too. I like Stosh.

 

Now, where did I put my Tao Particle?

 

Good luck with that one.