Printable View
"Everything always looks good on paper"
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/...thingpaper.jpg
"Nothing ever looked so good"
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/...glooksgood.jpg
If it seems so...
Must be so...
Oh?
If so, why so?
If no, why no?
To which do you refer?
I don't know. :P
Almost nothing is "black or white" to me. The world is full of "shades of gray".
My line of thinking is still somewhat cynical though: "Most things have strings attached" or "Things are seldom as good as they appear."
But to say EVERYTHING is this or that... I usually don't agree with such lines of thinking.
Ah, in other words...
"Nothing is what it seems."
It's funny how that assertion can come across as either timid or arrogant depending on which meaning one focuses on.
To me, the seams seem to exist directly proportional to the amount of seeming or lack thereof regarding perceived seams of this or that...
Therefore, if you see meaning regarding this or that... you see meaning regarding this or that...
If you see none... you see none...
The name of the game.
Confirm or deny.
Who is it making the choice?
Can it be located and put into words?
Oh no! Another headache inducing thread :lol:
I can't quite wrap my brain around it.
It's like someone saying: "It's ALWAYS proper to spank children who are misbehaving."
ALWAYS? What if the child is sick, experiencing loss or trauma, is simply having a bad day.
There's simply too many variables to give a concrete answer without having SPECIFICS.
Thus, there's never an always answer.
...Although to say so would be an always. So there's almost never an always answer.
Everything without strings. The strings are only present if you think the strings are present.
Allow me to pose a hypothetical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
If "everything" is without strings...
What does "everything" fall under scrutiny as?
I ask again... Who is it... deeming this so-called "everything"?
Wouldn't they be the so-called arbitrator or puppeteer pulling the strings of this so-called "everything"?
If so... the one observing must be the one to marionette the strings.
If not... where does this separation exist between "everything" and the one observing this so-called "everything"?
Realize. That perceived separation would be a string.
A string would have to exist in order to justify everything as "everything".
In my opinion, the only way to see no strings would be to see nothing stretching itself out as the illusion of something with strings in order to confuse itself...
Just a reminder:
The effervescence of the essence of matter is...
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/...ugenhouyou.jpg
Direct Translation: Dream delusion shadow bubbles
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/...ervescence.jpg
In other words...
Nothing is ever-happening :)
If something has a string, then it's attached to something else; even if this something is just the string.
I always like these threads. They're so pretty.
The projection comes from the projector...
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/...Projection.jpg
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/.../Projector.jpg
In other words...
The one in thought casts the shadow...
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/...rojection2.jpg
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/1/...projector2.jpg
Ahh and to think when this thread first appeared I couldn't even begin to understand it. I'd say nothing without strings. Though obviously that's not how it appears to most of us. Still, I have reason to believe there's truth in it, fully aware of the fact that conceiving it as a 'truth' is in essence a string.