@keystone

You might be interested in Norman Wildberger on YouTube. He seems to hold positions on infinity similar to yours.

Godidit" is babytalk. — 180 Proof

Babies are not as stupid as you think

Well yes Buddhists do not typically accept Jesus as their lord and saviour. If you want to make the case that Buddhism pulls one towards Christianity in an indirect (and therefore fuzzy) way, by means of drawing one's mind towards metaphysical or "spiritual" matters, then the claim (that x can pull one towards Christianity) can stand for almost anything. It's too broad, too vague.

I've lurked this forum since it's inception and have seen many of streetlights interactions with others over the years. The fact is that street often let his emotions come through in his posts in a negative fashion, but he also brought a great deal of quality and insight to the forum. This explains the ambivalent responses to his being banned.

Personally I had friendly and helpful interactions with him. He spoke passionately with me (via PM) about continental philosophy, especially deleuze, and I consider it a real shame for the forum to lose someone who can contribute to those types of discussions.

If this was a democracy I'd vote clemency.

I already made the point that it's pure speculation. Can you read?

Two people not knowing makes a "we".

You neither.

We don't know. Anything else is speculative.

This [ desire for a single complete resolution (PI, #91) ]--"as if our usual forms of expression were, essentially, unanalysed; as if there were something hidden in them that had to be brought to light... [ finds expression in questions about essence ] ...not something that already lies open to view and that becomes surveyable by a rearrangement, but [ we imagine ] something that lies beneath the surface... something that lies within, which we see [ only ] when we look into the thing, and which an analysis digs out." PI, #92 This is the human compulsion to "penetrate" (PI, #90) the world by way of knowledge that Wittgenstein is turning from in glancing sideways at what is essential about a thing by examining what Kant would call its "conditions"; that our ordinary expressions reveal what something can be (is possible of, and limited to). — Antony Nickles

Excuse my ignorance. Are you claiming that Witty was in favour of ordinary language philosophy?

and ctrl Z for us peasants

Plenty of discussion taking place on this forum that has nothing to do with religion. You could engage with that but you prefer to enter into threads about religion to proclaim how much you dislike religion. Leave / stay. Your choice. /Shrugs

You've never encountered of philosophy of religion? I've noticed that you can't help displaying your aversion whenever anyone dares mention religion on this forum. That's a you problem. Deal with it.

What's with all the religions threads recently? — Jackson

Just get over it.

Anti-difference-of-degree-ism

Please explain how Buddhism can pull one towards Christ. Genuinely curious and not trying to start a quibble. I just don't see it.

https://archive.ph/QiU2g

Why is philosophy so preoccupied by delineation and classification? What is the use in carving up reality (via natural articulations or artificial)? Even if we could grasp absolutely what human-ness is, it would be a mere catalogue entry; nothing more. Searching for the essence of a thing is a futile endeavour anyway. I very much agree with @Hanover

Does the self have a core that remains self-identical
over time , or is it always a slightly new and different self that come back to itself minute to minute , day to day? Have you read Varela and Thompson’s ‘The Embodoed Mind’? There , they use neuropsychological evidence to make the argument that there is only a contingent center of agency, and that the organism is a community of temporary selves. — Joshs

I wonder how they account for continuity. Maybe I should read it ...

What are the implications of considering addiction in such a manner (enactive model)?

Then why do I see the evidence all around me and you don't? — Hillary

Because you are a hopeless romantic

Is this question an example of dialetheism?

Oh ho ho, are you saying that what concepts track differ based on what we decide? — StreetlightX

I would prefer to say that chromosomes track biological sex. Not gender.

Do you want to ask whether biological sex is an institutional fact?

Well for the sake of argument I totally disagree and submit that gender is defined by your chromosomes such that "The bishop is made of wood" is no different to "George is a man". What now? — StreetlightX

"Je vais prendre ma voiture."
Which chromosomes does my car have?

A quick intuition pump to see how incredibly facile the distinction is: is gender an institutional fact, or not? — StreetlightX

Gender is a grammatical category within a wider activity (language).
Gender use is deontic: "Tout vas bien ma fils?" would be an incorrect usage.

So yes, at first glance, gender does seem to fit the description of institutional fact given by banno in his opening post.

How does the baby dog know to go to mamma's nipples? — Haglund

Seems plausible to me that instinct is empirical knowledge. Genetic knowledge evolves through world interaction.

Atheists seem as happy as theists if not more — Agent Smith

Citation needed

the meaning of life — Agent Smith

Or in a conversation about the nature of reality.

can't compare absurdism to the PSR — Agent Smith

Opposites of the same coin.

The only reason for any axiom is its usefulness, what it enables one to do/construct. It's pretty evident how useful PSR is.

The PSR has enjoyed the favor of philosophers, logicians, and scientists. It's considered rationally legit. Not woo woo, not nonsense. — Agent Smith

Absurdism has also enjoyed the favour of philosophers. Perhaps less though.

And the sufficient reason for the "PSR" is ...? — 180 Proof

Axiomatic?

Those who would go on a suicide terror mission are driven by ideology, their thoughts have taken the reigns. This is not in the least bit mindfulness.

Mindfulness is not complacency, it is total awareness.
Mindfulness is not a state of detachment, it is pure presence.

Ultimately, talking about mindfulness will not reveal what it really is. Words are inadequate after a certain point. Direct experience is required.

I will leave you with the last word. — Paine

And thus you follow in the footsteps of everyone who encounters Mr mellow. Wise move.

Context matters, no? — 180 Proof

Not when the context is from a position of ignorance.

@180 Proof :roll:

Better watch out @Jack Cummins

Mindfulness will turn you into a crazed suicide bomber.

The point is that you can be mindful of emotions without getting caught up in them. They have as much power as you allow them. Doesn't matter whether the emotions are dark or blissful, they come and go in the same manner. Attention magnifies: A tiny thought can become a giant monster. So where you direct your attention is important. Mindfulness is turning the attention back on itself (being aware of awareness). Resting as awareness is not getting sucked into streams of thoughts or emotions, but rather observing the fact that these things (all phenomena, thoughts) rise and fall in awareness, while you (the unchanging observer of all that is changeful) remain untouched. Like clouds drifting through the sky, the sky remains unblemished. I agree it's true that alcohol or drugs hinder ones ability to be present.

I find it odd that one who claims to have been a friar has such an abrasive character.

Jesus never preached a single word about observing a religious observance. Not one. — Joe Mello

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.(A) 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.(B) 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands(C) and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven

Alright have fun with your thread.

That seems unlikely to me because Wittgenstein’s focus was on meaning as sense , and sense is a form
of feeling — Joshs

More likely Wittgenstein's notion of sense is derived from freges distinction between sense and reference, which has little to do (if anything) with feeling. Sense is the expression of a sentence, while reference is the truth value.

I literally said the same thing as you in my previous posts. I don't know why we are talking past each other. I have said God is not your metaphysical principal or your conceptual understanding. Sometimes discourse can be useful, sometimes not. I certainly don't need this discussion to occur in order to find God. Infact yes you're right, this is a mere distraction from the truth. But hey ho, here we are existing in this dualistic world. Discourse tries to rationalize that which can't be rationalized.

God’s answers are given to us, not put away in secret — Joe Mello

Who's God? .

“…no matter how much the thoughts off the top of our heads won’t shut up.” — Joe Mello

Thinking is the most benign addiction.