Quantum Wrote:To that end, allow me for the first time to address the author as much as the message. I do not disagree with "you" dear friend. I take only a position. That position is more intended that we remain true to our reference point, i.e. "The Law of One".
Chaotikmind Wrote:I got your point, i just tend to rely more on experience than any external source, it's easier to use texts to put words on experience than trying to use the texts to get that experience IMO.
Although I had thought to bow out of this thread, I feel honor bound to continue, this based on you willingness to engage. Thank you once more Chaotikmind. I am happy to continue with you. I was sure you, perhaps more than most, would in fact get my point, as you seem straight, able to divorce yourself form yourself, and able as a result to remain on point, verses viewing anything as personal. I commend you for this. In fact, having read all of your posts, as well as your challenges, I surmise you might feel deceptive to yourself were you to feel personal. I perceive you moreover as honest, particularly given your willingness to put yourself out there, and in as much as you state that you feel lying is a waste of energy. To that end Chaotikmind, may I again diverge from my norm by attempting to ask several questions, this as a means of perhaps illuminating positions in as much as you "tend to rely more on experience than any external source."
1. Have you read all of The Law of One books in their entirety?
2. If not, how many of them have you completed to date?
3. If not, do you intend to finish them?
4. If so, do you feel you resonate with the information contained within The Law of One as given by Ra
a) either in it's entirety?
b) to a larger part?
c) or to a lessor part?
Chaotikmind Wrote:You were previously talking about armchair philosophy, i guess talking is itself "armchair philosophy" compared to experience, and seeing how the world accelerate now (hard not to see it , feel it) it's probably not anymore the time to talk, hehe.I wish once again to point out what I feel the distinction is between what I term armchair philosophy verses true philosophy. In response to ayadew Post #105 I open in my 5th sentence with: "I in no way believe that general philosophizing is a waste of time, as much as I do that armchair philosophizing is". After my #105 response to ayadew, I then needed again to reiterate, but at greater length to GLB's Post #108, wherein he too seemed to misinterpret, albeit with far more thrust, the same. I did so with my response to him in Post #109. You are exactly on target my friend where you state that experience, in this instance, serves better than 'armchair philosophizing'. Philosophy however at it's highest order and intent is not to be misconstrued with the armchair order. To your point of talking as a waste of time: Talking is communication. Communication has great power, whether it be self-talk or otherselves-talk. Both in a sense (self-talk vs other-selves talk) may be viewed as the same. Philosophy to it's highest order is not arm chair philosophy, just as talking as communication at it's deepest intent is not dribble or babble. Talking as communication at it's deepest order then is not a waste of time in any manner my friend. It may be argued then that communication empowered through a philosophy has the highest effect upon the planet, and man upon it.
I look forward to your answers. Thank you again Chaotikmind,
Q