Thread: ClouD, Cyclic, DeathCell, really, zeneyes, etc.

Do you all realize that you have proved O'nus' point with three pages of mindless dribble? After three pages, most of you haven't even addressed the original posts questions, let alone answered them. The closest any of you have come was Cycskye's ridiculous assertion that he knows the answer but doesn't wanna say.

And who's to say this?

/facepalm

/palm-tree

/Tree-face

Originally Posted by really

And who's to say this?

It's blatantly obvious to anyone that can communicate.

~

Don't waste your time O'nus.

What do you see in this image?

Originally Posted by really

What do you see in this image?

I see a post responding to the one that answers this question about how perception is reality is perception and neither answer is more right than the other.

Originally Posted by Mark75

I see a post responding to the one that answers this question about how perception is reality is perception and neither answer is more right than the other.

I see two faces, I also see an altar, table like thing, chalice, something you would pour water into. Oh the ability to see the dark and the light.

It comes down to this.

Some people are way to out in the clouds.

Some people are way to "reality" based.

OMG SCIENCE SAID NOOOOO, when really science didn't say no. Just a theory doesn't exist yet.


Peace

Originally Posted by really

What do you see in this image?

Your image and vague response is only a pathetic dodge of the question.

All you have done is proven your intellectual incompetence while trying to maintain a pretentious pseudo-intellecutality by blatantly dodging all forms of criticism.

You defend yourself to the death and cannot accept feedback nor criticism on any of your posts or ideals. No one can discuss with you because your unfalsifiable logic is compounded by your subtle arrogance.

While I tried my best to converse with you, all you have done is offered nothing in return but anecdotal reasoning and defense of your own stance rather than taking any responsibility for possibly being wrong or being capable of learning something.

But you don't need to learn anything anymore, apparently.

Please do not waste your time responding with vague semantic arguments over the words I am using to re-define your world. It is only your defense to show that you are intellectually incompetent and cannot acknowledge others opinions or accept criticism.

EDIT:

I thought I should add that I fully am aware that you are trying to illustrate the problems of perception and opinion. However, you do not even remotely try to purport your perception of my opinion which was what I was asking for.

You have done nothing but failed as a developing human being.

~

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

What?

O'nus made an assertion, not a question:

I was referring to the opening post.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Your image and vague response is only a pathetic dodge of the question.

My image wasn't even specifically directed at your question. It was an example of how we can perceive the same thing in different ways; an analogy of your question(s) and the whole thread, not a singular response.

Originally Posted by O'nus

All you have done is proven your intellectual incompetence while trying to maintain a pretentious pseudo-intellecutality by blatantly dodging all forms of criticism.

You defend yourself to the death and cannot accept feedback nor criticism on any of your posts or ideals. No one can discuss with you because your unfalsifiable logic is compounded by your subtle arrogance.

While I tried my best to converse with you, all you have done is offered nothing in return but anecdotal reasoning and defense of your own stance rather than taking any responsibility for possibly being wrong or being capable of learning something.

There is nothing to defend; and if you think this is about proving who's right and wrong and criticizing beliefs, you've mistaken the context of this paradigm - which you happen to have brought up in the first place.

Starting this thread with questions and asking "What do you think?" are the same. You cannot avoid your perception in the world. Again O'nus, you have already stated that:

+ Subjectivity is the only certain knowledge
+ Subjective experience can never be represented or properly expressed
+ You cannot truly understand each level of self-transcendence until you have reached it

I have agreed, and replied we have already outlined this. What more do you want?

+ There is a level of self-understanding in which the self can truly feel "one" with everything (the definition of "one" is irrelevant as I think we can all agree that it is a feeling of tranquility due to existential-like reasoning, etc.)

Actually, now that I think of this ^ again, why have you jumped to this conclusion? You have stated:

+ You cannot truly understand each level of self-transcendence until you have reached it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Please do not waste your time responding with vague semantic arguments over the words I am using to re-define your world. It is only your defense to show that you are intellectually incompetent and cannot acknowledge others opinions or accept criticism.

Actually, I think there is arrogance that you think you can even define "our world" at all, let alone your own! Again, you've already admitted this isn't even possible. Here, the intellect is incompetent, and that is why you think there is constant failing. If anything, the basic limitations are abstractly illustrated through consciousness research - which you're probably not even interested in.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I thought I should add that I fully am aware that you are trying to illustrate the problems of perception and opinion. However, you do not even remotely try to purport your perception of my opinion which was what I was asking for.

If you're "fully aware", why do you even repeat the flawed questions? Where is the importance; the reliability in that?

What?

O'nus made an assertion, not a question:

Originally Posted by O'nus

It's blatantly obvious to anyone that can communicate.

~

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Do you all realize that you have proved O'nus' point with three pages of mindless dribble? After three pages, most of you haven't even addressed the original posts questions, let alone answered them. The closest any of you have come was Cycskye's ridiculous assertion that he knows the answer but doesn't wanna say.

.

Mindless dribble? Perhaps mindlessness is the point.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I didn't state a perspective, I stated an objective observation.

The relevance was concordant with the question; identifying how we perceive the same phenomena. I asked a question about it, as O'nus did about his.