04 Sep 19
@fmf saidBut the statement is about the nuance of knowing the objectively unknowable through a subjective means.
Just read the thread.
If someone likes what you said about "something happening" when Buddhists think about the "unknowable", I'm sure they will engage you.
04 Sep 19
@philokalia saidNo "absolute truth" about "unknowable" things related to supernatural causality and thus "immutable" truths about "divine laws" is generated. Are you really determined not to read the conversation you've barged into with your flim-flam waffle? Do you not understand what dj2becker is asserting? Do you really not understand what KellyJay is asserting on this thread?
But the statement is about the nuance of knowing the objectively unknowable through a subjective means.
04 Sep 19
@kellyjay saidThank you, once again, for your personal subjective opinion about how you have "confirmed" your opinion.
One must go to a scale to see weight, a plumb line to check the vertical, a level to check the horizontal, laws to check legality. Truth is discovered it’s not internal unless we confirm our opinions to the known good.
@dj2becker saidYou don't have to agree with, remember. All we are doing here is sharing our subjective personal opinions about this stuff.
Yet somehow you just happen to know that neither of us knows. Fascinating.
05 Sep 19
@fmf said
No "absolute truth" about "unknowable" things related to supernatural causality and thus "immutable" truths about "divine laws" is generated. Are you really determined not to read the conversation you've barged into with your flim-flam waffle? Do you not understand what dj2becker is asserting? Do you really not understand what KellyJay is asserting on this thread?
No "absolute truth" about "unknowable" things related to supernatural causality and thus "immutable" truths about "divine laws" is generated.
So, what you're saying is....
No absolute truth about unknowable things related to supernatural causality is generated (through meditation or prayer or other means), and thus immutable truth about divine law doesn't exist.
Or something like that.
Not a surprising statement from you.
And nothing is really asserted here.
Are you really determined not to read the conversation you've barged into with your flim-flam waffle? Do you not understand what dj2becker is asserting? Do you really not understand what KellyJay is asserting on this thread?
I am only determined to share my ideas -- and, even then, I am not particularly determined.
Just kinda winging it, if you know what I mean.
05 Sep 19
1 edit
@philokalia saidUnderstood. You are exactly as I perceive you and as I have described you on several occasions.
I am only determined to share my ideas -- and, even then, I am not particularly determined.
Just kinda winging it, if you know what I mean.
If you want to start a thread inviting people to react to your personal opinion about how Buddhists know the "unknowable" and how this means "something is happening" with regard to "objective" facts and the "absolute truth", do so. I am sure there will be people who will want to discuss it with you.
05 Sep 19
@philokalia saidNot a surprising statement from you.No "absolute truth" about "unknowable" things related to supernatural causality and thus "immutable" truths about "divine laws" is generated.
So, what you're saying is....
No absolute truth about unknowable things related to supernatural causality is generated (through meditation or prayer or other means), and thus immutable truth about divine law doesn't exist.
Or something like that.
Not a surprising statement from you.
You find it "not surprising"? Is that all? Is this an example of you engaging with what I said in a "complex way"?
Wasn't it you who oozed the following on the previous page? ...
"I think you're not interested because you don't want to engage with it in a complex way".
You are, at times, a bit of a self-parody.
Go for it with the thread about 'There's "something is happening" with the Buddhists".
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
05 Sep 19
@fmf saidOf course no one has to agree with anyone if you are arguing within a framework of relative truth. It’s like trying to agree about where the goalposts should be if they are continually moving!
You don't have to agree with, remember. All we are doing here is sharing our subjective personal opinions about this stuff.
05 Sep 19
@dj2becker saidWhere you think the goalposts should be and whatever framework you have chosen or have been raised to believe in, these are matters for your subjective opinion and speculation.
Of course no one has to agree with anyone if you are arguing within a framework of relative truth. It’s like trying to agree about where the goalposts should be if they are continually moving!
You can talk about how your conjecture and belief in supernatural things are "objective" till the cows come home, it doesn't make a difference. They are just your personal opinions.
05 Sep 19
@fmf saidI don't really get it.
Not a surprising statement from you.
You find it "not surprising"? Is that all? Is this an example of you engaging with what I said in a "complex way"?
Wasn't it you who oozed the following on the previous page? ...
"I think you're not interested because you don't want to engage with it in a complex way".
You are, at times, a bit of a self-parody.
Go for it with the thread about 'There's "something is happening" with the Buddhists".
I give a series of statements on the topic, and then you do not respond, and then when I ask if I got the meaning right for what you typed and say that your very small, unproven statement isn't surprising, you act like I have now somehow dropped the ball.
But I'll leave this interaction at that until there is on-topic content.
I do not need to get into some cat fight about the Forum meta-drama.
@philokalia saidYou don't seem to understand what the discussion is about. I am not sure you're even trying to. You're just winging it perhaps.
I give a series of statements on the topic, and then you do not respond, and then when I ask if I got the meaning right for what you typed and say that your very small, unproven statement isn't surprising, you act like I have now somehow dropped the ball.
But I'll leave this interaction at that until there is on-topic content.
I do not need to get into some cat fight about the Forum meta-drama.
It is religious people's prerogative to signal or 'hyperbolize' their certainty and sincerity about their faith with whatever adjectives they choose, but it only has traction when they are doing so with people who agree with them.
Their assertions are, nevertheless, rooted in subjectivity.