The Metaphysical Consciousness

Speaking of running on...

I saw a man pursuing the horizon

I saw a man pursuing the horizon;
Round and round they sped.
I was disturbed at this;
I accosted the man.
"It is futile," I said,
"You can never --"

"You lie," he cried,
And ran on.

(Stephen Crane)
Click to expand...
 
bruto said:
I hate to break it to you, sir, but grabbing a cleaver and flailing does not "solve" the problem of word salad.

The command to "be simply silently be," aside from its unfortunate grammar, is hard to reconcile with the verbosity that seems to accompany it.
Click to expand...

"be simply silently be" is a typo.

The right one is "by simply silently be" or "by simply being silent" and it is not a command but the actual calm state of consciousness that is naturally free of word salad.
 
bruto said:
Speaking of running on...
Click to expand...

Some rest

I saw a man pursuing the horizon.

"Why are you trying to get there?"
I asked him.

"To get some rest"
He said.

"There is no particular place for resting."
I said.

"You lie," he cried,
And ran on.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Some rest

I saw a man pursuing the horizon.

"Why are you trying to get there?"
I asked him.

"To get some rest"
He said.

"There is no particular place for resting."
I said.

"You lie," he cried,
And ran on.
Click to expand...

Well, Stephen Crane you're not for sure, and the fact remains that if the horizon is not attainable it does not matter what reason you have for the attempt.

Do you really not understand that the horizon cannot be reached?
 
bruto said:
Well, Stephen Crane you're not for sure, and the fact remains that if the horizon is not attainable it does not matter what reason you have for the attempt.

Do you really not understand that the horizon cannot be reached?
Click to expand...


All things are possible with TM.

Attain calmness and the horizon reaches you.
 
bruto said:
Do you really not understand that the horizon cannot be reached?
Click to expand...
Do you really do not understand that the real invariant state can't be addressed by your relative-only variant-only illusive-invariant (an illusion of permanence) horizon analogy?

To different places that are relatively equally variant-only w.r.t each other, are not the absolutely invariant state among bot of them.

Your analogy is equivalent to the variant changing of both sides of a given equation, which ignores the invariant proportion among both sides of it.

So, once again, there is no particular place for rest, exactly as the invariant proportion among both sides of a given equation is not some particular values in both sides of it.

Any science that uses equations is useful exactly because
Donn said:
YES an equation, any equation, shows unchanged and changed properties.
Click to expand...


More comprehensive framework of the invariant AND variant principle that is not limited only to equations, is seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
Well, Stephen Crane you're not for sure,
Click to expand...
I take it as a compliment, because Stephen Crane is another mind that wrongly addresses the real invariant in terms of illusive-invariant (an illusion of permanence).

bruto said:
and the fact remains that if the horizon is not attainable it does not matter what reason you have for the attempt.
Click to expand...
The horizon is not attainable exactly because it is illusive-invariant (an illusion of permanence).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I take it as a compliment, because Stephen Crane is another mind that wrongly addresses the real invariant in terms of illusive-invariant (an illusion of permanence).


The horizon is not attainable exactly because it is illusive-invariant (an illusion of permanence).
Click to expand...

If you thought the horizon analogy inapt it would have behooved you not to parody the poem at all, much less to get it backwards. You seem to be under the misapprehension that the delusion of an attainable horizon belongs to the poet and not to the person he addresses.

You can take my statement as a compliment if you please. Stephen Crane was a famous writer whose work will endure, and a compliment was not in the least intended, but in a thread so saturated with woeful misunderstanding and comically misplaced complacency, the compliment is quite in character.
 
bruto said:
If you thought the horizon analogy inapt it would have behooved you not to parody the poem at all, much less to get it backwards.
Click to expand...
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the delusion of an attainable horizon was not explicitly expressed by the poet's illusive-invariant (an illusion of permanence) view, through the person he addresses.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
Nobody is missing your posts. They're being rejected. There's a big big difference. It may hurt to acknowledge it, but it's a real difference.
Click to expand...
Illusive-invariant (an illusion of permanence) is not actual invariant, no matter how many times you wrongly reject it by addressing it as illusive-invariant (an illusion of permanence).

The delusion of an attainable horizon is a concrete example of how one rejecting the actual invariant by addressing it in terms of illusive-invariant (an illusion of permanence), exactly as done by Stephen Crane's misleading poem of the actual invariant.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Once we attain calm, illusion passes and we can see that we are someone else's horizon.
Click to expand...
Once we attain actual calmness, there is no someone else's horizon, simply because actual calmness is unity (there is no someone else's of any kind).


There is no particular place for resting, exactly because unity is not a collection of many things (where one type of many things can be places).
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Once we attain calm, illusion passes and we can see that we are someone else's horizon.
Click to expand...
If unity is established, then harmony is naturally spread among many horizons.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the delusion of an attainable horizon was not explicitly expressed by the poet's illusive-invariant (an illusion of permanence) view, through the person he addresses.
Click to expand...

You are not making any sense at all. You really need to find a way to express yourself without the buzz words. The poet sees a delusion and identifies it. This does not make him party to the delusion.
 
bruto said:
The poet sees a delusion and identifies it. This does not make him party to the delusion.
Click to expand...
It is a delusion exactly because the horizon is not actually invariant.

You and the poet take this delusion and wrongly identify it as actually invariant state that can't be reached.

Moreover, if I am wrong, and you and the poet identify the horizon as variant, both of you did not identify the invariant.

So, no matter how we look at it, you and the poet are off-topic, in this case.

bruto said:
You really need to find a way to express yourself without the buzz words.
Click to expand...
You really need to find a way to express yourself on-topic, which means, to actually address the invariant, before you say anything, at least, about it (direct knowledge of it is not an option by your relative-only variant-only reasoning).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
It is a delusion exactly because the horizon is not actually invariant.

You and the poet take this delusion and wrongly identify it as actually invariant state that can't be reached.
Click to expand...


Baloney baloney baloney. The poet sees someone chasing the horizon and thinking he can catch it. The poet says you can't catch it. The deluded person says you can. Clearly, the poet understands the variance of the horizon. That is the whole point of the thing: the poet, unlike the deluded person, understands that the horizon always moves and that therefore you cannot catch it. It should not require an essay here to make sense of this very simple poem. The poet obviously, clearly, openly and verbally, does not share the delusion of the person he is addressing. That is why he said what he said.

Statements of variance and invariance are not present here. Can you catch the horizon?

You keep saying the horizon chaser is deluded because he believes something to be invariant when it is not. You appear to believe in invariants too, but you have not yet caught one.
 
bruto said:
Baloney baloney baloney. The poet sees someone chasing the horizon and thinking he can catch it. The poet says you can't catch it. The deluded person says you can. Clearly, the poet understands the variance of the horizon. That is the whole point of the thing: the poet, unlike the deluded person, understands that the horizon always moves and that therefore you cannot catch it.
Click to expand...
You have missed this part
doronshadmi said:
Moreover, if I am wrong, and you and the poet identify the horizon as variant, both of you did not identify the invariant.
Click to expand...
Since this variant-only poem is off-topic, then why are you using it, in the first place?

bruto said:
You keep saying the horizon chaser is deluded because he believes something to be invariant when it is not. You appear to believe in invariants too, but you have not yet caught one.
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself, because you are the one that the invariant is some kind of belief for him.

Moreover, your variant-only paradigm (and the irrelevant use of Crane's poem) simply can't address the fact that there is no particular place for rest, exactly as the invariant proportion among both sides of a given equation is not any particular values in both sides of it.

Any science that uses equations is useful exactly because
Donn said:
YES an equation, any equation, shows unchanged and changed properties.
Click to expand...


Furthermore, your variant-only paradigm actually can't address http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515 comprehensive view of invariant AND variant principle of reality.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The right one is "by simply silently be" or "by simply being silent" and it is not a command but the actual calm state of consciousness that is naturally free of word salad.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good, but why must you dump your word salad here?

Free yourself of it, by all means, but dump it elsewhere. Aim for concision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom