Deeper than primes - Continuation

[doronshadmi]

Traditional mathematicians deal only with context-dependent frameworks, yet they claim that these isolated frameworks are "branches" of the same "tree", even if there is no cross-contexts foundation to Traditional Mathematics.

 

[doronshadmi]

Philosophy can take them a little further, but there is precious little of that here either.

It is actually done only by directly being aware of Unity ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059327&postcount=477 ).

Philosophy is still some expression at the level of thoughts.

 

[doronshadmi]

'blind leading the blind'

Says a person that has no clue of Unity awareness.

 

[doronshadmi]

The realisation of a unity of being cannot easily be explained, especially if the people you are explaining it to are of a scientific or sceptical mindset.

Most of the posters in this thread try to capture it only at the level of definitions, where definitions are no more than expressed thoughts.

The poor results of this limited attitude about Unity awareness is seen over and over again by them all along this thread.

 

[jsfisher]

Most of the posters in this thread try to capture it only at the level of definitions, where definitions are no more than expressed thoughts.

So, Doron, you admit your preference for unexpressed thoughts with no definitions? 'bout time.

 

[dafydd]

Says a person that has no clue of Unity awareness.

Says the person who made up the meaningless phrase 'unity awareness'.

 

[dafydd]

The realisation of a unity of being cannot easily be explained

That is because it is a load of tosh. A unity? How many are there?

 

[doronshadmi]

Those who are trapped only at the level of thoughts (and definitions are always at the level of thoughts) can't realize that the very nature of thoughts is to be changed when deeper awareness of a given subject is known.

 

[doronshadmi]

That is because it is a load of tosh. A unity? How many are there?

One, which is not a one-of-many thing, as explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8061757&postcount=490 .

 

[jsfisher]

Those who are trapped only at the level of thoughts (and definitions are always at the level of thoughts) can't realize that the very nature of thoughts is to be changed when deeper awareness of a given subject is known.

Ah, so you also admit your posts are without thought. 'bout time for that, too.

 

[dafydd]

One, which is not a one-of-many thing, as explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8061757&postcount=490 .

You call that an explanation?

PS. You forgot the swampthing



My philosophy is based on the twothing. Twothingness fuses as onethingness and creates unified unity awareness of things as dual aspects of the unifold manifold where many thing become onething in the thingness of thingness and awareness of non thinking thingness becomes one with all. But only if you shut your eyes.

 

[realpaladin]

See, no communications between Punshhh and Doron. Sidekicks always have to bow to the master, I guess.

 

[realpaladin]

PS. You forgot the swampthing

My philosophy is based on the twothing. Twothingness fuses as onethingness and creates unified unity awareness of things as dual aspects of the unifold manifold where many thing become onething in the thingness of thingness and awareness of non thinking thingness becomes one with all. But only if you shut your eyes.

You make my heart sing!

 

[realpaladin]

The realisation of a unity of being cannot easily be explained, especially if the people you are explaining it to are of a scientific or sceptical mindset.

I could say read the yoga sutras of Patanjali and learn to meditate. I doubt I would have many takers in a place like this.

It is ironic that posters on this forum regard monism as the ontology of favour. While this is not translated into any more substantial appreciation of what one thing existing might entail. They generally stop at the extent of the reach of science at this time. Philosophy can take them a little further, but there is precious little of that here either.

I am a Vedic Flyer... I have gotten a personal Mantra from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (now guess which City I live in... should not be hard now).

I have taught at the Vedic University in Fairfield Iowa...

I have read and understood the full 'Vedic Mathematics' (read the first thread, I expound quite lengthily on this).

I think you two are wannabe's.

 

[dafydd]

The realisation of a unity of being cannot easily be explained, especially if the people you are explaining it to are of a scientific or sceptical mindset.

I could say read the yoga sutras of Patanjali and learn to meditate. I doubt I would have many takers in a place like this.

It is ironic that posters on this forum regard monism as the ontology of favour. While this is not translated into any more substantial appreciation of what one thing existing might entail. They generally stop at the extent of the reach of science at this time. Philosophy can take them a little further, but there is precious little of that here either.

I am not a monist.

 

[punshhh]

I am a Vedic Flyer... I have gotten a personal Mantra from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (now guess which City I live in... should not be hard now).

I have taught at the Vedic University in Fairfield Iowa...

I have read and understood the full 'Vedic Mathematics' (read the first thread, I expound quite lengthily on this).

I think you two are wannabe's.

Ah, you are acquainted with unity then, greetings.

Oh and by the way I don't want to be a Hindu, remember what I said about belief.

 

[punshhh]

It is actually done only by directly being aware of Unity ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059327&postcount=477 ).

Philosophy is still some expression at the level of thoughts.

Yes.

There are other approaches to unity.

 

[punshhh]

Most of the posters in this thread try to capture it only at the level of definitions, where definitions are no more than expressed thoughts.

The poor results of this limited attitude about Unity awareness is seen over and over again by them all along this thread.

Each will have their own view on unity in whatever form it takes.

 

[doronshadmi]

I am a Vedic Flyer... I have gotten a personal Mantra from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (now guess which City I live in... should not be hard now).

I have taught at the Vedic University in Fairfield Iowa...

I have read and understood the full 'Vedic Mathematics' (read the first thread, I expound quite lengthily on this).

I think you two are wannabe's.

Despite of what has been written by you above, your awareness is trapped at the level of thoughts (you defiantly have no direct awareness of Unity).

 

[doronshadmi]

Each will have their own view on unity in whatever form it takes.

Only personal view (which is only at the level of thoughts, where thoughts are only subjective) is not Unity awareness.

Unity awareness is actual only if the calm non-subjective source (which is not in itself a thought) is not lost during all possible expressions (whether they are abstract of physical).