It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It's time to wake up!

page: 37
25
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Didn't you try that a few pages back?
If you really want to try, all points.

I thought you said you agreed with some of my points.

I made mine though. If NA (non acceptance) arises from a thought which thinks things could be different and these sort of thoughts are rooted in a sense of self, then the sense of self can be seen through in DE and self inquiry. It is nothing more then an illusion.

So I clearly stated how NA arises and how it can be seen through. NA is unecessary to live life, acceptance allows for much more functionality and happiness.

Seeing through the self reduces suffering greatly because it is seen that every thought and emotion cannot be held on to/controlled/changed. They all arise and subside spontenously, and seeing this allows for much more acceptance because it is seen that non acceptance is an illusion. It's not about believing there is no self, it's about seeing reality as it is.

Don't let me ask you so many times, if you have anything specific you want me to address that seems unreasonable and unverifiable please show me and tell me why you think it is flawed. Don't ignore this point.



So you say you will try in the first part and then start making excuses in the second.

The way you use the word excuses is empty, you provide no reason why you think so. I did try to put things logically by saying this fact is relatable to all of us and that all of our experience is subjective (me). So I was making a point which every human could relate on. It's like me saying " I know that if I am compassionate instead of having the urge to kill everyone, that would be better for me and other people." And you reply to that "But that's only true for you, not for anyone."
edit on 18-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
I thought you said you agreed with some of my points.

Yes, until you started talking about things you could not prove.


Don't let me ask you so many times, if you have anything specific you want me to address that seems unreasonable and unverifiable please show me and tell me why you think it is flawed. Don't ignore this point.

I don't care what you address. I'm not looking to learn anything from it.

If the part above this line is an example of scientific logic then you need to figure out what science is.


The way you use the word excuses is empty, you provide no reason why you think so.

I don't need to provide a reason. I was comparing two chunks of text and they speak for themselves.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   


Yes, until you started talking about things you could not prove.

Can you just tell me what specifically?

What do you personally think is the best way to reduce mental suffering/NA in general and live as happy a life as possible?



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   


I don't need to provide a reason. I was comparing two chunks of text and they speak for themselves.

By scientific facts, I already said that neuroscience knows that thoughts happen before they become conscious, that there is no free will. But science does not address how to reduce suffering specifically. I can only do so logically.
edit on 18-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Can you just tell me what specifically?

Probably everything after you split thoughts into good and bad.


What do you personally think is the best way to reduce mental suffering/NA in general and live as happy a life as possible?

I don't care.

I don't think it is necessary.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Are you saying I cannot prove how seeing through the illusion reduces suffering? If that's what your talking about, I have already stated my points and can go through them again if you have any specific questions.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Probably everything after you split thoughts into good and bad.

I didn't. Didn't I say that thoughts are all illusions though and devoid of any meaning like good and bad?



I don't care.
I don't think it is necessary.

So reducing suffering isn't necessary to you?



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Are you saying I cannot prove how seeing through the illusion reduces suffering? If that's what your talking about, I have already stated my points and can go through them again if you have any specific questions.

You keep equating stating your points to proof. That isn't the case and you either have to go by a set standard or let the listener make the call.

I have no specific questions.


I didn't. Didn't I say that thoughts are all illusions though and devoid of any meaning like good and bad?

Yes you did.

But I explained two ways I mean it. One is a good thought of discontent, which basically means, "I will address this issue, all the while accepting my inevitable fate fully." The bad form of discontent is rooted in the idea that this moment could have been different that it already is...



So reducing suffering isn't necessary to you?

No.



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




You keep equating stating your points to proof. That isn't the case and you either have to go by a set standard or let the listener make the call.
I have no specific questions.

To which statement were you saying there was no proof for?



Yes you did.

So then why accuse me of splitting thoughts into good and bad?



No.

So it would make no difference whether you were suicidal vs happy?



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
And also, what's the main moral philosophy you live life by? Which values are most important to you?



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
To which statement were you saying there was no proof for?

You missed the point. Doesn't matter which ones, the point is that you don't get to decide what constitutes proof. It is either measured by a standard or the person listening to you decides if it is proof to them.

So, when someone reads your posts and then says "wow, great stuff, really resonates", that means that to that person it was proof.

When someone says, "has that been proven scientifically?" means that they want to see it compared to a standard.


So then why accuse me of splitting thoughts into good and bad?

Those where your words that I quoted. You did split a thought into two catagories.


So it would make no difference whether you were suicidal vs happy?

Difference in what?



edit on 18-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
And also, what's the main moral philosophy you live life by?

I don't follow any.


Which values are most important to you?

None.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




I don't follow any. None.

I'd new you'd say that, but that's not possible. You have to have some values important to you.



You missed the point. Doesn't matter which ones, the point is that you don't get to decide what constitutes proof. It is either measured by a standard or the person listening to you decides if it is proof to them.
So, when someone reads your posts and then says "wow, great stuff, really resonates", that means that to that person it was proof.
When someone says, "has that been proven scientifically?" means that they want to see it compared to a standard.

I'm not giving any opinions thought, I am speaking about how NA arises and how to see through it. Science isn't involved in this specifically, so I have to give the rest of my reasons logically. Since science doesn't deal with these issues specifically can you speak more about what standards do you want it compared to?



Those where your words that I quoted. You did split a thought into two catagories.

And I said that that wasn't ultimately true. I just did that for relative purposes.



Difference in what?

Experience.
One is a more pleasurable experience then the other, without even needing to say it is better or worse. The experience speaks for itself.
edit on 19-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
I'd new you'd say that, but that's not possible. You have to have some values important to you.

Honestly, I can't think of the time when I thought about them so, I have to say that, no, none of them seem overly important to me.


I'm not giving any opinions thought, I am speaking about how NA arises and how to see through it. Science isn't involved in this specifically, so I have to give the rest of my reasons logically. Since science doesn't deal with these issues specifically can you speak more about what standards do you want it compared to?

No, science is what we all can share.


And I said that that wasn't ultimately true. I just did that for relative purposes.

Then it was pointless.


Experience.
One is a more pleasurable experience then the other, without even needing to say it is better or worse. The experience speaks for itself.

Experience is experience regardless of whether it is better or worse, pleasurable or not.

Yes, they are different but, you just said it, one isn't necesarily better or worse than the other.


edit on 19-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




No, science is what we all can share.

Living without suffering is a philosophical stand point. Science doesn't specifically deal with this. And to add to that, I did explain how science knows for sure that throughts are made before they become conscious and that control is really an illusion.



Then it was pointless.

From the absolute, but your just shifting contexts interchangeably.



Experience is experience regardless of whether it is better or worse, pleasurable or not.
Yes, they are different but, you just said it, one isn't necesarily better or worse than the other.

This is a pure example that you are complicating things way too much.
I already said that there is nothing wrong with experience. But I am saying we can still use labels better and worse to pursue the experiences that bring us most pleasure. This is unavoidable. What is there not to agree with here?
Of course maybe there sometimes be more variables involved but you have to ask for it, not conclude immediately that I am wrong.

When we speak about non acceptance for example, it is an unnecessary thought. Life experience improves without it. But from another point of view, if the non acceptance made you tired and drove you to seek for self transcendence, then it was good you experienced that.


edit on 19-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:40 AM
link   
And one more time show me what you want me to prove or what you think is inconsistent of what I've said. That said, your bound to find inconsistencies in my writings because I may mean different things by same words but clearly explained where with perspective.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 05:48 AM
link   
"Prove that there experiencing suffering is bad."

It isn't an I can't. We use the words better and worse to enable ourselves to experience what we think is the best experience possible. Then I give examples of what can improve our experiences.

I'll state my point one more time. NA of this moment arises from a thought that things could be different. If there was no thought that things would be different, then that suffering would not be there, so the experience without suffering would be better.
The thought arises from a sense of self. A sense of control and that this "I" could have done otherwise. When you see through this illusion, control will no longer be believed and NA would not either. Leaving one with a more peaceful and functional mind.
edit on 19-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2015 by Andy1144 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Andy1144
Science doesn't specifically deal with this.

It does deal with the things your claims refer to.


From the absolute, but your just shifting contexts interchangeably.

No, from every level.


This is a pure example that you are complicating things way too much.

So when I'm not oversimplifying I'm complicating. Meh.


And one more time show me what you want me to prove or what you think is inconsistent of what I've said.

I don't "want" you to prove anything. Have you not gotten that?

I'm just pointing out that most of what you claim has not been proven.


"Prove that there experiencing suffering is bad."

It isn't an I can't.

Enough said.


edit on 19-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik





I don't "want" you to prove anything. Have you not gotten that?
I'm just pointing out that most of what you claim has not been proven.

Examples?



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Andy1144

It's so much, I just find it easier to say everything.

ETA: Also, I already told you and all you do is repeat the same thing over like that is going to prove something that it didn't the last time you posted it.
edit on 19-11-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join