Proving you can't have a rock in your hand

[FmAm]

I'm assuming that you're wrong FmAm.

It is highly possible that I'm wrong in everything I say or write (maybe that makes me Zen master ^). But luckily I'm not responsible for my mistakes or writings.

Edited January 14, 2015 by FmAm

[Marblehead]

But luckily I'm not responsible for my mistakes or writings.

You have to be a guy because it takes balls to say something like that.

[FmAm]

You have to be a guy because it takes balls to say something like that.

Yes, I'm a guy. But I don't think this is a question of gender. And I'm a living proof that those balls don't have to be big.

Edited January 14, 2015 by FmAm

[Nungali]

I dunno if I can hold a rock, but I do enjoy getting my rocks off. Just sayin'

 

 

Thats possible ... if you have more than one . You just cant get one of your rocks off

[Nungali]

Imagine you throw a rock at a bottle. The bottle breaks. Then, you go and see the pieces of glass on the ground and say "I threw a rock. It broke a bottle." If you say something like that, your words are not pointing to the reality, to this world. Because there are just the pieces of glass on the ground. And to be precise, there are no pieces of glass. But that applies only to the reality. o.O

 

Forget imagine ....lets go outside .... I bet you I can break that bottle by throwing this rock , $20 . (of course we will have an impartial referee that will hold the money and judge the event ).

[Nungali]

Number doesnt apply to the world because there are no independently existing things--neither rocks, nor hands, nor consciousnesses. Each thing contains all other things. A rock is made up of all non-rock elements, which is what makes it a rock. And the elements of all those elements are fundamentally empty.

 

8)

 

 

<throws another one rock at astral monk >

 

This is fun .... I like philosophers ..... next!

[Nungali]

there is no rock

 

there is no bottle

 

 

 

shunka

 

... <throws a bottle at shunka >

[Nungali]

Conceptually, "whole" numbers and "real" numbers are very different.

 

For instance, I have one child. I don't have 0.999999999999 child or 1.00000000001 children. When my I brush a breadcrumb from my shirt, it is exactly one crumb -- if it breaks into pieces, it breaks into a whole number of crumbs -- there is no concept of "half a crumb."

 

 

 

Aha .... but !

 

......

 

 

Half a bee, philosophically

Must, ipso facto, half not be

But half the bee has got to be

A vis-a-vis its entity, d'you see?

But can a bee be said to be

Or not to be an entire bee

When half the bee is not a bee

Due to some ancient injury?

 

Eric, the half a bee

A, B, C, D, E, F, G

Eric, the half a bee

 

Is this wretched demi-bee

Half asleep upon my knee

Some freak from a menagerie?

No! It's Eric, the half a bee

 

I love this hive, employee

Bisected accidentally

One summer afternoon, by me

I love him carnally

He loves him carnally

Semi-carnally....

 

The end

 

( Cyril Connelly?

No, semi-carnally

Oh, ... )

 

 

[Nungali]

Also, even if there is a rock, you're not actually holding it. You're never actually holding or touching anything because of electron resistence.

 

Kristia Bourgeon < remembers>... now that was a gal with some heavy 'electron resistance' !

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

The OP is a great example of how the intellect is not always useful in our daily lives.

 

 

 

 

"a rock" is quantative psychology.

"Rock" is qualative psychology.

 

You can have rock in your hand, but "A rock" is a mathematical illusion, binding infinity within limited form of quantum.

[FmAm]

Forget imagine ....lets go outside .... I bet you I can break that bottle by throwing this rock , $20 . (of course we will have an impartial referee that will hold the money and judge the event ).

After the rock is thrown and the bottle is broken, what makes you think that I have thrown the rock and the bottle has broken? For it is pure philosophy and storytelling to think that there was a "past" where I threw that rock right there and broke the bottle that is no more a bottle. All I can see is a rock and some pieces of glass. And someone standing there with $20 in hand.

Edited January 14, 2015 by FmAm

[Brian]

 

 

Aha .... but !

 

......

 

 

Half a bee, philosophically

Must, ipso facto, half not be

But half the bee has got to be

A vis-a-vis its entity, d'you see?

But can a bee be said to be

Or not to be an entire bee

When half the bee is not a bee

Due to some ancient injury?

 

Eric, the half a bee

A, B, C, D, E, F, G

Eric, the half a bee

 

Is this wretched demi-bee

Half asleep upon my knee

Some freak from a menagerie?

No! It's Eric, the half a bee

 

I love this hive, employee

Bisected accidentally

One summer afternoon, by me

I love him carnally

He loves him carnally

Semi-carnally....

 

The end

 

( Cyril Connelly?

No, semi-carnally

Oh, ... )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are a looney.

[Nungali]

After the rock is thrown and the bottle is broken, what makes you think that I have thrown the rock and the bottle has broken? For it is pure philosophy and storytelling to think that there was a "past" where I threw that rock right there and broke the bottle that is no more a bottle. All I can see is a rock and some pieces of glass. And someone standing there with $20 in hand.

 

Nooo ... I said I throw the rock ... I bet I can break the bottle with the rock ... it was clearly written ... how are you going to work out philosophy if you cant .....

 

Okay ... start again with the first established premise ... (here we go again ... having to refer to the previous post - I know that Plato did that a lot, but ... ohhh, very well then ! ... ) ;

 

I bet you I can break that bottle by throwing this rock , $20 . (of course we will have an impartial referee that will hold the money and judge the event ).

 

 

I do it ... I get the $20 off the ref .. I walk away (to the pub)

 

You stand there wondering what just happened ... suits me fine .... I will be back later to see what you have come up with ( hopefully another $20 and you want to watch me do it again )

 

 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2015 by Nungali

[Nungali]

Brian ..... music .... ? ....

 

Ohhh , right, the previously established order:

 

me with the words first and then you with the music :

 

 

<ahem> ...

 

" Immanuel Kant was a real pissant

Who was very rarely stable

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill

Plato, they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
Hobbes was fond of his dram

And René Descartes was a drunken fart
I drink, therefore I am

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed ........

 

A lovely little thinker
But a bugger when he's pissed

[FmAm]

Nooo ... I said I throw the rock ... I bet I can break the bottle with the rock ... it was clearly written ... how are you going to work out philosophy if you cant .....

 

Okay ... start again with the first established premise ... (here we go again ... having to refer to the previous post - I know that Plato did that a lot, but ... ohhh, very well then ! ... ) ;

 

I bet you I can break that bottle by throwing this rock , $20 . (of course we will have an impartial referee that will hold the money and judge the event ).

 

 

I do it ... I get the $20 off the ref .. I walk away (to the pub)

 

You stand there wondering what just happened ... suits me fine .... I will be back later to see what you have come up with ( hopefully another $20 and you want to watch me do it again )

Sorry. Someone throwing a rock is obviously hard for me to understand.

 

There are two sides of story.

 

I'm standing and wondering there, watching me giving a piece of paper to someone (in your story this happens again). There are pieces of glass, a rock, someone watching us.

 

But I'm going too far here trying to describe my imaginary experience of that situation. What if I'm not able to conceptualize the pieces of glass, or you, or even myself? I could be seriously demented (this is the situation explained in a socially conditioned way). There's nothing happening to me, but there's still experience.

 

In your experience there are myriad of things happening, including your experience, past and the possible future. Both sides of the story are true as experiences, but not as events. All that is provable to me is the experience. I'm not saying my experience, because in that situation I'm not able to identify "my" and "me".

Edited January 15, 2015 by FmAm

[GrandmasterP]

Perhaps these...

Rock-Paper-Scissors

gameplay rules may help to advance this debate.......

http://m.wikihow.com/Play-Rock,-Paper,-Scissors

 

Edited January 15, 2015 by GrandmasterP

[FmAm]

said: The absolute and the relative.

 

I say: A moron like me playing the teacher is the absolute (or rather my experience of playing the guru). (And so is the experience experienced by a seriously demented person who doesn't know he/she is a person.)

[Nungali]

Sorry. Someone throwing a rock is obviously hard for me to understand.

 

There are two sides of story.

 

I'm standing and wondering there, watching me giving a piece of paper to someone (in your story this happens again). There are pieces of glass, a rock, someone watching us.

 

But I'm going too far here trying to describe my imaginary experience of that situation. What if I'm not able to conceptualize the pieces of glass, or you, or even myself? I could be seriously demented (this is the situation explained in a socially conditioned way). There's nothing happening to me, but there's still experience.

 

In your experience there are myriad of things happening, including your experience, past and the possible future. Both sides of the story are true as experiences, but not as events. All that is provable to me is the experience. I'm not saying my experience, because in that situation I'm not able to identify "my" and "me".

 

No ... you are not seriously demented at all

 

You are just having 'photographic reality conception' ... like seeing 'reality' in snapshot ... a frame cut out of a roll of film ... and looking at that one frame as one isolated moment of time ... of which , of course, there can be no 'real' such thing (that only exists in the 'ideal') . 'Functional reality' has to observe the 'stream' and the 'no one moment' of the film for one to be able to function within the 'film' .

 

The problem with not being able to identify 'my' and 'me' isnt that great when one is an actor within the film, that is all you have to be. But if one wants to step out of the film, it might help to have an understanding of who it was that was acting a role or character in the first place. From that perspective their is no real actor or character.

 

Now ... to get down to the real philosophical issues here < tosses the rock up from hand and catches it > do you have another $20 on you or not ?