(May 23, 2013 at 1:53 pm)little_monkey Wrote:

Violet Wrote:How/in-what-way does <this thing> exist?

That last sentence proves my point.

What... that everything exists? Of course it does.

You are a creature that perceives, yes? Of course you are.

Is not the question of what you observe any particular thing to be entirely a different question from the existence of all things? Of course it is.

If a thing is seen by nobody, how does it look? Like chicken.

---

(May 23, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: He he he... I can picture this response as he reads this post. What an amusing aside.

I like to be sure that people know what they're talking about

(May 23, 2013 at 2:06 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

(May 23, 2013 at 1:53 pm)little_monkey Wrote: That last sentence proves my point.

What... that everything exists? Of course it does.

You are a creature that perceives, yes? Of course you are.

Is not the question of what you observe any particular thing to be entirely a different question from the existence of all things? Of course it is.

If a thing is seen by nobody, how does it look? Like chicken.

---

(May 23, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: He he he... I can picture this response as he reads this post. What an amusing aside.

I like to be sure that people know what they're talking about

Uh huh...It must be that. Because, I'm sure you don't enjoy finding peoples buttons and then MASHING them...that wouldn't be fun, right? lol..

(May 23, 2013 at 2:06 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: What... that everything exists? Of course it does.

Everything is a big word. Let's narrow it down. I ask you if you believe that Superman, Spiderman, etc., exists, you said yes.

Quote:You are a creature that perceives, yes? Of course you are.

Do Superman, Spiderman, and the rest of the cartoon world perceive?

Quote:Is not the question of what you observe any particular thing to be entirely a different question from the existence of all things? Of course it is.

You obviously do not understand the difference between form and content.


I can perceive that smiling face just above this sentence, but it is a configuration of pixels, that is what is called the form. The content is what that picture is about, and that is not real, unless you're insane or smoking pot.

Quote:I like to be sure that people know what they're talking about

Apparently you don't.

(May 23, 2013 at 2:42 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: Uh huh...It must be that. Because, I'm sure you don't enjoy finding peoples buttons and then MASHING them...that wouldn't be fun, right? lol..

Hey, I'm a temptress... I do like to find people's buttons, and I love to press them until they give in to me... but mashing them? That's only for special cases.

Like masochists. Or power play if I know they'll consent. Submissive little girls and boys... ahhh

---

(May 23, 2013 at 2:48 pm)little_monkey Wrote: Everything is a big word. Let's narrow it down. I ask you if you believe that Superman, Spiderman, etc., exists, you said yes.

Everything is a normal-sized word, that says that every thing exists.

Yes, every thing exists.

Quote:Do Superman, Spiderman, and the rest of the cartoon world perceive?

Do rocks perceive? Is perception some mystical tool by which a thing that exists may exist?

Quote:You obviously do not understand the difference between form and content.


I can perceive that smiling face just above this sentence, but it is a configuration of pixels, that is what is called the form. The content is what that picture is about, and that is not real, unless you're insane or smoking pot.

Is it now? Here I thought it was a patch of mystical blue tiger flipper-web. Wouldn't you be interested in knowing... that the form of anything... is wholly dependent upon that which perceives it? Specifically: "where" is it seeing it from? "what angle" is it seeing it from? "what things" is it capable of seeing?

You SURELY can't be telling me you know what objective existence looks like? Because that'd be hilarious, and I'd laugh at you

Content and form are the same being. That is to say: the form is a part of the content of the being. And one being is another being and more than one being and three; and no being and some other being and no being known to me. Edit: because you're clueless, I'll help you: perceivers are responsible for the whole of any individual 'content', there is only <all there is> without such beings. And there is still <all there is> with such beings.

How about unfortunately sane, and entirely lucid? It's crazy people that insist that they know everything and who say such hilarious things as 'everything doesn't exist'

Quote:

Quote:I like to be sure that people know what they're talking about

Apparently you don't.

Code: That doesn't even make any sense!

(May 23, 2013 at 2:49 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Yes, every thing exists.

You don't have to repeat your nonsense.

Quote:Do rocks perceive? Is perception some mystical tool by which a thing that exists may exist?

It's not mythical. If you think it is, then I dare you stand in front of an incoming train.

Quote:You obviously do not understand the difference between form and content.

Quote:Wouldn't you be interested in knowing... that the form of anything... is wholly dependent upon that which perceives it?

No one has ever perceived an electron AFAIK, yet gazillions of them are hitting your screen as you are reading this.

Quote:Specifically: "where" is it seeing it from? "what angle" is it seeing it from? "what things" is it capable of seeing?

And what's your point with this pathetic demonstration? I can teach you calculus, differential geometry, and quantum field theory. I'm not impressed by your juvenile display.

Quote:You SURELY can't be telling me you know what objective existence looks like? Because that'd be hilarious, and I'd laugh at you

I wasn't, hence your misperception, misundertanding and faulty reasoning.

Quote:Content and form are the same being. That is to say: the form is a part of the content of the being. And one being is another being and more than one being and three; and no being and some other being and no being known to me.

There are not the same. "You're a liar". The form pertains to the words and symbols making up that sentence; the content pertains to what it describes, which is either true or false.

Can your little head comprehend this elementary lesson, or am I talking to a twit?

(May 23, 2013 at 3:21 pm)little_monkey Wrote: You don't have to repeat your nonsense.

It would seem that I do, given how you didn't understand it the first time.

Quote:It's not mythical. If you think it is, then I dare you stand in front of an incoming train.

I've done so many times. Sometimes the trains split along the center, sometimes I am thrown out of the way, sometimes I die.

Perception. You still haven't told me how it applies to existence, of course. Didn't you know? Trains aren't real because they don't perceive

Quote:No one has ever perceived an electron AFAIK, yet gazillions of them are hitting your screen as you are reading this.

Are they? How about you demonstrate this?

Sigh... don't be a retard. You perceive with more than your eyes. Unless you happen to be deaf, unable to taste, unable to feel, unable to smell, and unable to think. Then I guess you would only perceive with your eyes

Quote:And what's your point with this pathetic demonstration? I can teach you calculus, differential geometry, and quantum field theory. I'm not impressed by your juvenile display.

What, it's not obvious? Okay... calclueless applies... where? To what? In what way(s)? Differential geometry applies... where? To what? In what way(s)? Quantummy field theories apply... where? To what? In what way(s)?

Good on you for having the slightest mastery over some of the most pathetic mathematics in the universe... but you don't seem to have mastered the basics even remotely... so I'm not sure what good it'll do you. 'I'm not impressed by your infantile display'

Quote:I wasn't, hence your misperception, misundertanding and faulty reasoning.

That's good... no idea where the last 3/4ths of that is coming from though, since it doesn't follow Not that you're likely aware of what that means, but hey: a lady can hope.

Quote:There are not the same. "You're a liar". The form pertains to the words and symbols making up that sentence; the content pertains to what it describes, which is either true or false.

They're not the same, form is a part of content. You can read, yes? Of course, they are also probably the same, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that things we recognize as different might infact be one and also different. I'm telling you only truths, regardless of your insistance

The form is a part of what content describes. That is to say: The content of any particular chair includes its form. The content of the idea of a chair includes its form.

"Which is either true or false?" Throwing the law of the excluded middle out there when LOGIC ITSELF is but a thing... ahh, how myopic.

Quote:Can your little head comprehend this elementary lesson, or am I talking to a twit?

I'm rather bigheaded, ask anyone around here, and they'll set you straight. Given that you haven't given me a lesson, but more an anger-induced tirade, I would suggest you attempt to rephrase your "lesson", as a rather smart person does not understand it due to serious failures in its presentation, which might leave such a person to believe that it was not so much a 'lesson' for her, but for the one who wrote it to look back upon later, and maybe learn something about themselves by hindsight.

You put the 'wit' in 'twit', sir.

Too bad you're such a fucked up twit.

Take care and good luck, you'll need it.

(May 23, 2013 at 4:06 am)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: * Violet Lilly Blossom wonders how many times she will have to say it...

Everything exists.

But what about nothing? For nothing to be nothing it can't very well be a thing that exists. Hard to be nothing and something at the same time you know. If you're truly pro-nothing you must admit it does not exist.

I see Violet is hard at it again making new friends!

(May 23, 2013 at 2:49 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: there is only <all there is> without such beings. And there is still <all there is> with such beings.

I can appreciate a lot of what you are saying. However, to me, this statement stuck out as a description of a logical absolute, that is to say, It appears as though (I don't doubt that you'll correct me if I've put words in your mouth...) that you're referring to something existing apart from subjective consciousness, and not contingent upon any other thing's existance and for that matter, a observer of any kind. Is this a fair assessment of your statement?