Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next > | Last >
Invisiblecez
 User Gallery
Registered: 08/04/09
Posts: 5,854
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
    #18783876 - 09/01/13 01:50 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

This is a great concept to read in a book.
In real life it kinda works differently with humans....


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleas7859
Stranger
Registered: 08/15/13
Posts: 49
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18784199 - 09/01/13 05:45 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:

as7859 said:
Quote:

teknix said:
Well, that is a fallacy of distribution, or hasty generalization.



There's no fallacy in me giving my definition of nature, which renders your argument unsound. For you, your argument is sound; for me, it is unsound, because I do not accept your second premise nor do I accept your conclusion.




nope, there is nothing wrong with you making up your own definitions, the fallacy is in the logic used to arrive at a conclusion. You super-impose meanings over one another, which isn't logical. (Like icelander is doing)



There is no fallacy in my reasoning, whatsoever. Your argument is unsound, in my opinion. And, in your opinion, it is sound. That's really the end of the debate as far as you and I go on this.


--------------------



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18784364 - 09/01/13 07:51 AM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
So I should have said "Living organism" . . .




Yes, apparently you should have, although I'm not quite sure why, because specifying that a corporation isn't a living organism means jack all for the point of contention. You may as well have said that a corporation isn't a dirty sock; it would have contributed exactly as much to the discussion. 

Quote:


Which is what I meant, so why don't you post the first two definition rather than just the ones that suit your purpose?




I was never suggesting that a corporation was a form of life, now was I? The specific point is that a corporation is analogous to a living organism, just like the dictionary said. That means, of course, that they are similar in regards to one or more particular aspects.
When I employed the analogy to debunk your nasty reductionism fallacy, you in turn tried suggesting that a corporation isn't actually an organism, as if that somehow negated the analogy or its purpose. It's your problem if you have trouble grasping what an analogy is and start embarking on tangents about how corporations aren't actually life forms, as if it were in any way, shape, or form relevant to the point of contention.

Quote:

That isn't the point, but a strawman you are building. Ownership requires an owner and the owner can only exist in thought as a concept of self, or a self-image.




No, it isn't a straw man to point out that your idea that a concept of self isn't necessary for ownership to exist. You specifically asked me for evidence of anything thinking it is owning, as an attempt to demonstrate your misconception regarding thinking and self-image being a prerequisite to ownership.
So, where's the straw man, then? If I reply by saying that it's not necessary to think "I'm owning something", or to think anything in regards to the fact that one is owning, in order for ownership to exist, and cite the dictionary that does not in any sense state that it's necessary for a self-conception or thoughts about ownership in order for it to exist, what exactly is it that I've created extra and then proceeded to tear down as though it were your original point? Where's the straw, man? If the dictionary won't tell you what the definition of straw man is, I'm sure the encyclopedia will kick in. :wink:

Quote:


Maybe if your analogy was a proper one, however it is not. Corporations do not have independent thoughts or DNA apart from humans idea of such.




You should probably take a few days off and curl up in bed with a good book... the dictionary.

Quote:


analogy  (əˈnælədʒɪ)

— n  , pl -gies
1. agreement or similarity, esp in a certain limited number of features or details
2. a comparison made to show such a similarity: to draw an analogy between an atom and the solar system




Intellectual discourse would probably go smoother for yourself and all those involved if you knew what an analogy actually was. :wink:

If everything was the same it wouldn't be an analogy, it'd be the same fucking thing.

It's completely irrelevant to the analogy and the point it was serving that corporations don't have independent thoughts or DNA. Saying a human vein is like a garden hose is a proper analogy even if a garden hose isn't made out of human tissue. :lol:
See what I did there? I used an analogy to demonstrate the flaw in your attempt to cricitize my analogy. :smirk:

You:
Humans don't actually own things because humans are formations of atoms and which atoms are actually doing the owning? Atoms can't own!
Me:
That's like saying a corporation doesn't own properties or other rights because corporations are comprised of employees, none of which individually hold the corporation's rights.

And your response is to suggest that it's not the same thing because corporations don't have DNA or independent thoughts? :rofl2: 

Take another peek at the definition of analogy: "similarity, especially in a certain limited number of features or details".
It isn't a bad analogy if the similarity between the two is valid. Sorry, but it is.

If you would have paid more attention to the definition of organism that I shared with you earlier, you would have understood better exactly why that similarity is valid.

Remember? "Any system having properties and functions determined not only by the properties and relations of its individual parts, but also by the character of the whole that they compose and by the relations of the parts to the whole".

As we clearly see, your suggestion that humans don't actually have ownership because they're composed of atoms, which cannot own, is fatally flawed by the very definition of organism, which implies that the whole composed by individual parts has character, properties, and functions that are not exhibited by the individual parts themselves.

Similarly, we see why my analogy was so apt in demonstrating this fatal flaw of your way of thinking on the matter. Indubitably, corporations are recognized as owning property and rights that are not owned by any individual person making part of the corporation, just the same as how humans and animals are recognized as owning something that is not owned by the individual atoms that comprise their physical bodies. :smile:

Quote:


Hardly, atoms don't own, they interact . . . that much should be obvious.





I didn't say that atoms own, now did I? I clearly stated that atoms are responsible for the phenomenon of ownership. I didn't say that they own, I said that they are responsible for the phenomenon, as they comprise the beings that do own.
To continue paving away with the plow that is analogical thought, it's similar to the way in which neurotransmitters are not thoughts, however, neurotransmitters are, very much indeed, partially responsible for thoughts.

Quote:


Then give me an objective demonstration showing ownership as an objective phenomena.




I already did. Territorial animals exhibit every characteristic of the concept of ownership, just as much as humans do.

Quote:


I don't know if you're being serious right now or make silly jokes, atoms don't go home at the end of the day and they don't think as far as we can tell. Does your atoms become unbound and separate to their individual homes after 8 hours of work . . .I can't believe you're even arguing about that, I know you can do better.





What, do you think the human body forever consists of exactly the same atoms? :lol: Atoms get hired and fired all the time, just like employees. Why do you think you eat and breathe?

Quote:


Corporations do not fall into the definition of natural, as the animals we inhabit this planet with do. So you probably want to think of something natural if you are to make a proper analogy.




It's not my fault that you can't keep track of what the analogy was for, nor if you don't really grasp the concept of what an analogy is.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSse
Saṃsāra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18785037 - 09/01/13 12:05 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

"nope, there is nothing wrong with you making up your own definitions, the fallacy is in the logic used to arrive at a conclusion. You super-impose meanings over one another, which isn't logical. (Like icelander is doing) "

It isn't a made up definition, well it is but they are in a dictionary so it's ok. :tongue:


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nature
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature

All sorts of definitions for nature, many can be interpreted to include everything. There is no absolute definition for nature


--------------------
"Springs of water welling from the fire"

"Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."


"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions."
-Thich Nhat Hanh
instant
"Experience always goes beyond ideas"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18785522 - 09/01/13 02:20 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:

analogy  (əˈnælədʒɪ)

— n  , pl -gies
1. agreement or similarity, esp in a certain limited number of features or details
2. a comparison made to show such a similarity: to draw an analogy between an atom and the solar system




Look, I'm not going to argue with you about the legitimacy of your analogy anymore after this, I'm simply going to ignore it because you are objectively WRONG!

Quote:


Definition:

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
Examples:
Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees.
Government is like business, so just as business must be sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must government. (But the objectives of government and business are completely different, so probably they will have to meet different criteria.)
Proof:
Identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. Show that the two objects are different in a way which will affect whether they both have that property.
References:
Barker: 192, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 257, Davis: 84
26 May 1995





Quote:


Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy:
The relevance of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion.[1][2]
The amount and variety of the examples in the analogy.[1][2]
The number of characteristics that the things being compared share.[1][2]
An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects. The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was one of the first individuals to engage in a detailed examination of analogical reasoning.[2] One of Mill's examples involved an inference that some person is lazy from the observation that his or her sibling is lazy. According to Mill, sharing parents is not all that relevant to the property of laziness.[2]
A basic example: "The model of the solar system is similar to that of an atom, with planets orbiting the sun like electrons orbiting the nucleus. Electrons can jump from orbit to orbit; so we should study ancient records for sightings of planets jumping from orbit to orbit."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy





The property we are looking for is Natural, or of nature. According to the definition provided.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
    #18785532 - 09/01/13 02:23 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Sse said:
"nope, there is nothing wrong with you making up your own definitions, the fallacy is in the logic used to arrive at a conclusion. You super-impose meanings over one another, which isn't logical. (Like icelander is doing) "

It isn't a made up definition, well it is but they are in a dictionary so it's ok. :tongue:


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nature
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nature

All sorts of definitions for nature, many can be interpreted to include everything. There is no absolute definition for nature





So is your argument that there is something wrong with making up your own definitions or what? If you want to argue with another definition feel free to make another thread about it, rather than changing definitions in mid argument, as I reserved the right to define nature and natural in this one.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSse
Saṃsāra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18785576 - 09/01/13 02:32 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

nay im saying it really isn't a made up definition

and im pointing out that the definition of nature isn't absolute


--------------------
"Springs of water welling from the fire"

"Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."


"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions."
-Thich Nhat Hanh
instant
"Experience always goes beyond ideas"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
    #18785615 - 09/01/13 02:39 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Ok, but as far as it being anything used to differentiate, defining everything in the universe as natural is entirely pointless. Because we have a term for that, which is the universe.

Not only would natural be a meaningless distinction, so too would artificial and unnatural. So we just chopped out at least 3 words from our vocabulary by using that definition. So then we would need to think of other words to replace it when we are talking about things like we are, which would be a big waste of time.

If everything in the universe is natural, then what is the point, right?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSse
Saṃsāra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18785690 - 09/01/13 03:00 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Everyone is right and everyone is wrong

depends who you ask or who's eyes your looking from

but no one is absolutely right

natural doesn't have to involve a distinction for everyone's pov is all I'm saying.

It just seems like you only acknowledge that one definition of nature and then say anyone else's is made up.


Your argument is based on you knowing what is going on outside of your perception.


--------------------
"Springs of water welling from the fire"

"Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."


"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions."
-Thich Nhat Hanh
instant
"Experience always goes beyond ideas"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
    #18785769 - 09/01/13 03:22 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Sse said:
Everyone is right and everyone is wrong

depends who you ask or who's eyes your looking from

but no one is absolutely right

natural doesn't have to involve a distinction for everyone's pov is all I'm saying.

It just seems like you only acknowledge that one definition of nature and then say anyone else's is made up.


Your argument is based on you knowing what is going on outside of your perception.




Your right to an extent as far as understanding goes, but wrong in ascertaining we are all correct in this forums, because this is the debate forums and everyone doesn't get to be correct here.

But yeah, in all honesty I personally think you get it. As far as the debate goes, you have no idea what you are talking about.

^.^


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSse
Saṃsāra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18785778 - 09/01/13 03:24 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

About their definition of nature

I could say the exact same


well unless you are omniscient and playing games with us 


--------------------
"Springs of water welling from the fire"

"Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."


"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions."
-Thich Nhat Hanh
instant
"Experience always goes beyond ideas"


Edited by Sse (09/01/13 03:25 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetarzan92
Stranger
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/21/13
Posts: 290
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
    #18785856 - 09/01/13 03:45 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Nature is god buddy


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSse
Saṃsāra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
    #18786090 - 09/01/13 04:46 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

http://www.yorku.ca/jbeck/do_animals_engage_in_concep.pdf

scroll to the bottom if you want the summary


"there are real differences in the expressive power of different mediums of representation, so when we attribute mental states to animals we ought to be explicit about exactly what structure is being assumed."


It seems like your argument has mainly been that they don't form sentences to acknowledge ownership. If that's all you are arguing then you are probably right. Unless there is some sense we aren't able to observe. Perhaps even atoms have conceptual thought and have an unknown language of their own, not perceivable to us. Who really knows whats going on beyond our perceptions. For all I know there is some bear with conceptually(sentenced) understood absolute ownership in some far off land within our universe or planet. Unless you are omniscient I don't think you know any of that either.

Who knows what sorts of rudimentary or complex conceptual thought exists right under our nose, maybe even in a dimension we can't view currently. 





Edited by Sse (09/01/13 05:16 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
    #18786212 - 09/01/13 05:35 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Sse said:
http://www.yorku.ca/jbeck/do_animals_engage_in_concep.pdf

scroll to the bottom if you want the summary


"there are real differences in the expressive power of different mediums of representation, so when we attribute mental states to animals we ought to be explicit about exactly what structure is being assumed."


It seems like your argument has mainly been that they don't form sentences to acknowledge ownership. If that's all you are arguing then you are probably right. Unless there is some sense we aren't able to observe. Perhaps even atoms have conceptual thought and have an unknown language of their own, not perceivable to us. Who really knows whats going on beyond our perceptions. For all I know there is some bear with conceptually(sentenced) understood absolute ownership in some far off land within our universe or planet. Unless you are omniscient I don't think you know any of that either.

Who knows what sorts of rudimentary or complex conceptual thought exists right under our nose, maybe even in a dimension we can't view currently. 








If that is what it seems like to you then your probably not understanding. How do you know it is owning if it can't communicate it's ownership? If it is the case that animals can communicate with us, then they could have rights and ownership and also be subjectively apart from nature through the construct of a self.

Yeah who knows, and why pretend to know?

We can't morally catch and eat a fish if it has rights to life . . . and we can't build our houses on other animals land if they have rights to ownership.

I think you should consider the far reaching ramifications of your ascertains better in the future. I thought you had the ability to change perspectives and consider such things, but I guess not.

If what you claim is true, then you don't have the right to live where you do or to eat the food that you eat.

Get it?


Edited by teknix (09/01/13 05:40 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSse
Saṃsāra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18786272 - 09/01/13 05:52 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

sorry I may have just assumed you were relating it to a sentenced language by the way you stated it a few times.

when it has been brought up throughout this thread, you rebuttal with saying something along the lines of are they thinking they are owning. Maybe they are.

thought doesn't have to be entirely contingent with language.

ownership doesn't have to exist as absolute or with rights. It can exist in the here in now. It can exist in action and in current state.

We are limited to our perceptions, so no sense in holding such a belief that a form of ownership doesn't exist in nature.


--------------------
"Springs of water welling from the fire"

"Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."


"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions."
-Thich Nhat Hanh
instant
"Experience always goes beyond ideas"


Edited by Sse (09/01/13 05:53 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleas7859
Stranger
Registered: 08/15/13
Posts: 49
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18786293 - 09/01/13 05:57 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:

Sse said:
Everyone is right and everyone is wrong

depends who you ask or who's eyes your looking from

but no one is absolutely right

natural doesn't have to involve a distinction for everyone's pov is all I'm saying.

It just seems like you only acknowledge that one definition of nature and then say anyone else's is made up.


Your argument is based on you knowing what is going on outside of your perception.




Your right to an extent as far as understanding goes, but wrong in ascertaining we are all correct in this forums, because this is the debate forums and everyone doesn't get to be correct here.

But yeah, in all honesty I personally think you get it. As far as the debate goes, you have no idea what you are talking about.

^.^



"...because this is the debate forums and everyone doesn't get to be correct here."

When the truth value of a premise is based on opinion, then there is no 'correct' or 'incorrect'; and to assert that your opinion is the 'correct' one over others' opinions is just arrogant. That is why I have finished debating with you about your argument, because the truth value of your second premise is false in my opinion.

Therefore, there is no reason to argue any further, because at this point it is merely one trying to persuade the other to adopt their opinion. I won't be adopting your opinion, so for me your premise will always be false, and argument unsound.


--------------------



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: as7859]
    #18786320 - 09/01/13 06:04 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Well, that's you're prerogative, the truth value is not based on opinion, but sound logical deduction.

The definition of nature as presented for the premise says that humans and human creations are not of nature, therefore you lose. Your thoughts or idea's or opinions are irrelevant.

Have a nice day.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSse
Saṃsāra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18786321 - 09/01/13 06:05 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

It takes a self to acknowledge something being owned, if there is at all a possibility of a creature other then human having a self and thinking such things, perhaps in a sixth sense communicative sort of way; then by the definition you chose of nature, it would be considered natural.


Who knows what goes on beyond out perceptions and understandings of things.


--------------------
"Springs of water welling from the fire"

"Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."


"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions."
-Thich Nhat Hanh
instant
"Experience always goes beyond ideas"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
    #18786329 - 09/01/13 06:06 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

Sse, the argument would still be valid, the creature would just also be considered as separate from nature.

We don't have evidence of such a creature so it isn't included in the definition.

An alien that owned a spaceship would also not be a part of nature if he considered the spaceship "his or hers".


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSse
Saṃsāra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18786332 - 09/01/13 06:07 PM (10 years, 5 months ago)

not by that definition


--------------------
"Springs of water welling from the fire"

"Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."


"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions."
-Thich Nhat Hanh
instant
"Experience always goes beyond ideas"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next > | Last >

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* man v. nature
( 1 2 3 all )
DividedQuantumM 2,711 42 03/05/18 07:46 PM
by pineninja
* The nature of self-serving beliefs
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 7,500 28 10/13/02 12:12 AM
by johnnyfive
* The Ownership/Theft Paradox Anonymous 1,718 14 06/23/03 02:45 PM
by Sclorch
* Is the physical world independent of consciousness?
( 1 2 all )
Divided_Sky 3,765 27 08/25/04 11:11 AM
by Zahid
* Natural vs. synthetic drugs skaMariaPastora 2,857 16 03/19/02 01:31 AM
by rum
* Independent Verification
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
Swami 10,654 162 09/05/03 07:28 AM
by tak
* Let's define the word "natural"
( 1 2 3 all )
Dogomush 3,866 40 12/11/02 10:29 PM
by andrash
* Independent Truth- a road to greater empowerment and freedom
( 1 2 all )
gettinjiggywithit 2,974 25 09/04/04 06:59 AM
by Simisu

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
25,823 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.