All is within,without is an illusion.

[harmonygirl]

Thanks for you thoughts Hanzoganz, I absolutely agree! I have lived all around this country and it is remarkable that people create their own reality. This is very true for different aspects of this city as well. Those living on the Downtown Eastside have one reality that North Vancouver, West Vancouver and East Vancouver don't share. I don't get to Thurlow and Haro very often, but I"ll keep my eyes open. I LOVE the sushi here.

[hanzoganz]

Sushi is another experience that changes depending on where you are. Sushi is supposed to be japanese -I know it is. But while living in Vancouver i used to work with a chef from Hong-Hong and he told me that sushi in Vancouver was better than in Japan, maybe because of the quality of the fish from that part of the Pacific. So, again, reallity is twisted depending on how we perceive it. I recommend an All u can eat on Burrard, a block of Robson and another in the mall close to Central Park. Has anybody seen the movie Danny the Dog? It gives an idea of how reallity can be changed depending on experience. And the lead actor eat sushi, too.

[harmonygirl]

I know the very first time I had sushi, I was in Borneo, at a fisherman's camp and the sushi was as a treat to celebrate the Japanese newlyweds in our party. It was the richest, most delicious sushi I have ever experienced. I would totally recommend it! I have heard the same about Vancouver sushi. Have not yet seen the movie, but will keep my eyes open.

[Guille]

Well, Guille, I don't agree that DNA is nothing. I agree with you that it is the language of our physical existence (I don't agree with you that it, like all other languages, doesn't have physical existence, I think this is contradictory). It certainly has nothing to do with a discussion of inner and outer and the illusory nature of either or both.

That YOU don't see there is a connection between the discussion doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact, this is the fatal problem to the philosophy of phenomenology (what is exist is what I percieve).

What are words? We can say they are objects of language. But imagine you are talking to a being that is intelligent enough to understand the most complex objects of human thought but doesn't have a language nor can understand what it is or 'communication'. Of course, it is paradoxical that you have to communicate him what communication is, but that's not my point. The being would have the definition: that words are ink drawings on papers ussually made of several symbols with particular shape that are understood by human minds as meanings of percepts/concepts/actions/descriptions... But the words themselves don't exist physically, we cannot percieve words, we cannot smeell them, nor taste them, nor touch them, nor hear them, nor see them. All we can do is periceve the things which are described by the non-communicative being, and convert them into objects of our thought. Now what is the contradictory of saying that language (a tool of conception to represent perception and communicate perception) is not a perception? If I want to tell you "my computer is behing" I don't get a computer and put it behind you, that is already the situation. People are more than actors, no matter how much the system (capitalism-globalization-materialism-hypermodernism) wants us to reduce us to actors. Read Habermas.

Maybe you know what is playing with language. Or maybe not, and I have to explain you. When I say that DNA is nothing it is an example of playing with language. It is not exactly what the words mean, it is a kind of irony. Look it up in the dictionary... Yes, it's the book which you use to stabilize the table or whatever...

And this all has to do with the discussion about 'inner' and 'outer' as concepts and/or as illusions. First, we should define if minds are inner to a bigger supermind (as mkirkpatrik has proposed in other threads) or in an interactive existence, or outer in it, and can't interact. This important because we could know if really thoughts can be exchanged and 'communicated' directly, as this would mean the end of art, of science, and of philosophy (more than an end, actually, a new era). And are bodies inner to the world or outer is also important, for if they are inner then it means that all those stories about twins being sad at the same time, or sick or etz, would be proven true or false, and we might one day develop a way to create good things from it if it's true, liek to give lots of pleasure to lots of people (but having seen the stupidity of humans, we would probably use this ability to create hurt on lots, it would be the ultimate weapon of war).

Second, it is important to determine if body and mind are inner or outer each other. Not only that if they coudl exist alone, but also in that if our personalities are related to our genetics (which is true), or if, for example, we can have a fire on us but our mind not produce the feeling of hurt by burn, as Buddhist believe we can, and the famous image of a Buddhist burning sitting down should be rolling in the floor of hurt, but he is not, he doesn't feel.

Third, it is important to determine whether language is inner or outer to the physical world. Even though it is not part of it, it is not an object of perception, still it could be inner or outer of it in relationship. If it is inner, we can conclude (as language, generalised to communication, is the reduction of our ideas) that outer is an illusion of conception, but not vice versa, for if it is outer, still inner could be in our perception. Then we conclude fromt his something important: if inner is in language-->world, then there is no outer, but if outer is in language-->world then there still can be inner, in experience-->world.

Now we come back to phenomenology: are our experiences inner to the world, the objects? And from this question, discussed totally in Logical Investigations, Philosophy as Science Exerts and Ideas to a pure Phenomenology, we derive the whole philosophical discourse of the twentieth century, as Russell indicates in The Roots of Twentieth Centuy Philosophy.

[harmonygirl]

...and just because you say it exists, doesn't mean it does. I have examined the problem of language for longer than you've been alive, such is the nature of a lawyer (and I guess also of a philosopher). You have raised some interesting questions, but ones which I have already thought of and resolved. The mind is key. Physical existence is outer. The supermind (as you call it) is ultimately inner (although it appears outer). Language is an irrelevant consideration to this discussion, it exists only to facilitate understand (or in some cases to deliberately obfuscate!). It is a tool.

[mkirkpatrick]

To keep this concept ultra-simple it is just this,without is temporal-changing-and relative
which equals illusion.

Within is eternal-absolute-which equals absolute reality=LIFE intself!



regards michael.

[michellemfry]

I'm a big fan of life, but what egotistical living thinks that someone like Princess Di is any less lonely in death as she was in life. You can thank me later.

[mkirkpatrick]

I'm a big fan of life, but what egotistical living thinks that someone like Princess Di is any less lonely in death as she was in life. You can thank me later.

She is alone no more.


regards michael.

[michellemfry]

There is a little known fact about Nostradamus' code. It is like the knight on the chess board. Once forward, twice forward, the same thing twice and then a 45 degree angle into a false or anti-universe. There she can see her boys and also, in some strange realm also have the little girl she wanted to have. In that realm, she has not lost her title. Otherwise, William would go nowhere. Don't ask me how I know this. I scarecly believe it myself, but someone broadcast it through a satellite to me. With God all things are possible. With the queen, you just get castles and servants.

[mkirkpatrick]

There is a little known fact about Nostradamus' code. It is like the knight on the chess board. Once forward, twice forward, the same thing twice and then a 45 degree angle into a false or anti-universe. There she can see her boys and also, in some strange realm also have the little girl she wanted to have. In that realm, she has not lost her title. Otherwise, William would go nowhere. Don't ask me how I know this. I scarecly believe it myself, but someone broadcast it through a satellite to me. With God all things are possible. With the queen, you just get castles and servants.

He was a wise old soul,who had to be very careful what he wrote,else he would be
put to death as a warlock or heritic,hence the reason he wrote in code.



regards michael.