Horus Posted October 6, 2015 The cheese remains the same. Yep, cheese will always be body clogging crap - nothing changes that. Go Vegan!! but we see those things as they are. hmmm... Those things are the way they are - how we see them depends entirely upon our own filters. Otherwise all the human numbskulls on this planet would be seeing things as they really are - instead they only see the inside of their asses, because their heads are up there...each to their own though. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 6, 2015 Yep, cheese will always be body clogging crap - nothing changes that. Go Vegan!! hmmm... Those things are the way they are - how we see them depends entirely upon our own filters. Otherwise all the human numbskulls on this planet would be seeing things as they really are - instead they only see the inside of their asses, because their heads are up there...each to their own though. There are some concerns about the mental effects of vegan diets. There is emerging evidence that the brain requires saturated fats to perform optimally. That's another conversation. People see things as they are, they don't necessarily interpret them correctly. That might be ignorance through lack of experience, or simply poor cognition. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Horus Posted October 6, 2015 There is emerging evidence that the brain requires saturated fats to perform optimally. That's another conversation. Hmmm, emerging evidence from Meat Industry sponsored scientific studies no doubt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Horus Posted October 6, 2015 http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-set-up-to-fail/ http://nutritionfacts.org/video/The-Saturated-Fat-Studies-Buttering-Up-the-Public/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 6, 2015 Hmmm, emerging evidence from Meat Industry sponsored scientific studies no doubt. I haven't looked into it. We are omnivores and it's unlikely that we would have been able to survive for long on a pure vegan diet due to the lack of calories. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Horus Posted October 6, 2015 I haven't looked into it. We are omnivores and it's unlikely that we would have been able to survive for long on a pure vegan diet due to the lack of calories. Yes, a convenient misconception for the meat and dairy industry Plenty of calories in a potato bro! Does these people look low in calorific intake? No toxic, spirit dampening, cruelty embodying, flesh ever needs to be eaten Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Astral Monk Posted October 6, 2015 Some thoughts... Reality is reality we aren't 'interpreting it' we experience it directly through our senses. We might not reach the right conclusions about the things we see, but we see those things as they are. There are no 'right' conclusions because there is no objective reality; there are only infinite subjectivities each defining a unique non-overlapping phenomenal manifold. We dont experience reality as an external relationship, we are reality. There are potentially unlimited perspectives that could define a phenomenal manifold, hence there are unlimited realities. Each subjectivity IS a reality, they dont exist IN a reality. Take a stick and put it into a tumbler of water and the stick looks bent. oh no, not the old bent stick routine... Personally I question the idea of subjectivity. If one person dislikes the taste of cheese and another finds it pleasant then this is true for both parties. The dislike and like are existent emotional reactions. The cheese remains the same. What cheese is that? The cheese in A's mouth is not the cheese in B's mouth. So we have two entirely different cheeses and never an objective cheese remaining the 'same'. Not too mention that if neither A nor B existed there would be no cheese to be tasted. The cheese is inextricably tangled up with A and B's being as things that chomp on and critique appetizers. 8) 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Astral Monk Posted October 6, 2015 Those things are the way they are - how we see them depends entirely upon our own filters. We might say we see things as we are--since those things are not separate from our perception of them. To see 'things' as they 'really' are is only to see ourselves as we really are, whatever the highest, most fulfilled awakened awareness can reveal. So perhaps the clearest view of reality is actually up our own asses, lol. 8) 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Horus Posted October 6, 2015 never an objective cheese remaining the 'same'. Great post Astral Monk! Though, all cheese is fundamentally the same - life destroying SHIT! Along with the cow pus they make it from... AW SHIT! Who invited the VEGAN! LOL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Horus Posted October 6, 2015 We might say we see things as we are--since those things are not separate from our perception of them. To see 'things' as they 'really' are is only to see ourselves as we really are, whatever the highest, most fulfilled awakened awareness can reveal. So perhaps the clearest view of reality is actually up our own asses, lol. 8) hehe, quite ENLIGHTENMENT, THE FAST METHOD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 6, 2015 Yes, a convenient misconception for the meat and dairy industry Plenty of calories in a potato bro! Does these people look low in calorific intake? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM7MAlp0j50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xc3TSJFeY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9W7OY9M9mo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhW0ENr6YXA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucHEVNX2c9o No toxic, spirit dampening, cruelty embodying, flesh ever needs to be eaten Couple of things. Today we can harvest as many calories as we need, but it was far more difficult in the time of our ancestors. Crops were not so hardy and drought was common. It's unlikely that during the ice age we could grow much at all. It meant that some tribes would eat purely meat at times. I don't think Eskimos had a lot of fruit and vegetables. Second, calories and protein. Where are these body building deriving the protein ? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 6, 2015 Some thoughts... There are no 'right' conclusions because there is no objective reality; there are only infinite subjectivities each defining a unique non-overlapping phenomenal manifold. We dont experience reality as an external relationship, we are reality. There are potentially unlimited perspectives that could define a phenomenal manifold, hence there are unlimited realities. Each subjectivity IS a reality, they dont exist IN a reality. oh no, not the old bent stick routine... What cheese is that? The cheese in A's mouth is not the cheese in B's mouth. So we have two entirely different cheeses and never an objective cheese remaining the 'same'. Not too mention that if neither A nor B existed there would be no cheese to be tasted. The cheese is inextricably tangled up with A and B's being as things that chomp on and critique appetizers. 8) This appears to be a minor variation on the old 'everything is in flux' philosophy that modern philosophers have raised into modern consciousness. That an acorn becomes a tree doesn't deny the existence of an acorn. Grass becomes beef, grass and cows are existent objects. Man eats beef, but not grass. I see this is where science got tangled up with quantum cats. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 6, 2015 You know the live/dead cat was a refutation of quantum theory ? Schrodinger was being sarcastic. No, I didn't know that. I apparently missed the sarcasm. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 6, 2015 many say that quantum mechanics is the most verified theory in history How many? Three? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 6, 2015 Ah, well...you can't keep your head in the sand about that forever bro. It's all you means you are all of it aka you are a God. What, Ya think a God can't unGod itself and be a God/Not-God if it wants? I have been cautiously involved in such discussions before. I have accepted the logic of it but I do not accept the practicality of it. I have said before (jokingly) that I am the center of my universe. But I never did get those godly powers others speak about. Sure, if I were godly I could change faster than an octopus. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 6, 2015 Only up to the point that you are still viewing/living through the ego. When you surrender that and leave it behind in the 5D - you can live through a higher power void of egoic subjectivity. You then know without knowing that you are the creator of reality not the interpreter. Oh! No!!! Another who wants me to surrender my ego. Ain't never going to happen. I love my ego. (But I have visited that place you speak of.) 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 6, 2015 Ah well, 1000% more power in accepting and acknowledging that. Problems become potent pockets of potential then bro! I have been told that I should view the problems in my life as opportunities to excel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 6, 2015 Reality is reality we aren't 'interpreting it' we experience it directly through our senses. We might not reach the right conclusions about the things we see, but we see those things as they are. Now you are speaking a language I understand. And I will agree but only if we go no further than stating this. The experience of living is what it is. All of our experiences. The illusions and delusions arise when we start thinking about those experiences. Ten Thousand factors will determine how we interpret those experiences. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) Now you are speaking a language I understand. And I will agree but only if we go no further than stating this. The experience of living is what it is. All of our experiences. The illusions and delusions arise when we start thinking about those experiences. Ten Thousand factors will determine how we interpret those experiences. There isn't any need to go any further. This was Aristotles ending of the idea of 'flux' and 'the second world of forms'. These were the dominant philosophies until Aristotle appeared. Gradually through Kant, Hegel and Hulme, these philosophies have re-emerged. Science-the scientific method/inductive logic is entirely the creation of Aristotle. Kant, Hegel and Hulme are a return to skepticism and mysticism. As such it can be seen there is a danger in a collapse towards those barbarous philosophic relics. Edited October 6, 2015 by Karl 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 6, 2015 No, I didn't know that. I apparently missed the sarcasm. Funny how things which were arguments against a theory end up as being used as examples of proof. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 6, 2015 Kant, Hegel and Hulme are a return to skepticism and mysticism. I'm sure I have mentioned that I once upon a time tried reading Kant but had to put the book down after about ten minutes (and I'm a slow reader) because I just couldn't handle it. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 6, 2015 Funny how things which were arguments against a theory end up as being used as examples of proof. Yeah. If I thought it was important I would read up on it but I really do like using the cat as an example so I will likely just remain ignorant of it all. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 6, 2015 I'm sure I have mentioned that I once upon a time tried reading Kant but had to put the book down after about ten minutes (and I'm a slow reader) because I just couldn't handle it. It's deliberately like that. Rambling sentences and dead ends designed to leave the reader in stunned acceptance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 6, 2015 It's deliberately like that. Rambling sentences and dead ends designed to leave the reader in stunned acceptance. Well, it did stun but it missed acceptance. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Posted October 6, 2015 Well, it did stun but it missed acceptance. You did well even to attempt it. Once the basic premises are revealed that underpin the philosophy it's time to decide if there is further sense in reading something like that. I like the condensed version, the executive summary. Kant harks back to the primacy of consciousness so he can be safely ignored and his book consigned to the hearth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
