Above meagre Russian operation took place on Obama’s watch.
— raza

What difference does this make? If the store got robbed while I was at the desk, or while you were at the desk, is that supposed to implicate one of us, or something? — Metaphysician Undercover

The point is that Trump had zero control of that phenomena while Obama, comparively speaking (relative to Trump), had massive, governmental authoritative resources, therefore the other end of the spectrum with regard to control.

To utilise your analogy, therefore, Trump was neither the robber or the store owner whereas Obama would be the store owner.

What about all that computer hacking? — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you talking of a “hack” of the dnc server that the dnc never turned over to the FBI for investigative analysis despite several FBI requests?

Don't bother introducing raza to any facts, that's rather pointless. — Metaphysician Undercover

As soon as I opened that article this was in large letters beneath it’s headline.

“A plausible theory of mind-boggling collusion“

Now if you can explain how a plausible theory is a fact go right ahead.

Always careful to side-slip the substance and never, ever meet it openly or address it directly. Because that's not the point, is it? — tim wood

Address what directly? You merely said “reports”. Nothing for me to side-slip from because “reports” says zero.

You offered no qualification.

I'm not quite sure why I wouldn't - without restriction - call a discussion on an internet-forum a human relationship. Look at this post - I'm not responding to you but to a statement. — Heiko

I don’t know what this reply is responding to. The last response I made to you where I used the term “relationship” was in regard to yourself comparing yourself with another with mere assumptions about what an other could be assuming about you. I then called that out as playing a comparison game which I referred to as a futile game.

It is futile because it is circular, it creates unnecessary tension in your own mind, at it is a fabrication (assumptions) rather than actual, which all lends itself to a you which suffers contraction.

Following Kant the transcendental ego is the noumenal determination of that, which thinks. If there is thought, which we ought to know for sure, there must be something thinking. That's crystal clear. If it rains there must be something raining. — Heiko

You say that it is Chrystal clear and then attempt to qualify that with the rain analogy.

So, therefore, what is it that rains?

Another way to put it: What is the “it” in the sentence “it is raining”?

I am not sure I understand your position. Are you saying a beast is moved to intercourse by pleasure or by the aim to procreate? My guess is the former, as it appears a lot of beasts, especially the males, don't take care of their offsprings — Samuel Lacrampe

By aim to procreate. Procreation can and does often exclude raising children in a responsible manner or not at all.

The act of procreation is also not exclusive to the pleasure associated with that act, so it is not a one or the other argument.

Christianity has nothing against homosexuality as such, and is only opposed to particular types of sexual intercourse. According to christianity, the functions or ends of intercourse are (1) procreation, (2) union among two people in a marriage, (3) pleasure. And the act must be used with these ends in mind, in the order shown. — Samuel Lacrampe

It sort of places God as no more than a beast. A beast effectively merely tries to procreate.

The lure is the pleasure but beast does not know itself so it plunders and blunders toward a goal that often surprises with much anxiety.

The latter, ironically — Heiko

By the way, I think that is part of the comparison game. Ultimately futile, in my opinion.

Certainly not necessary in the human relationship sense. The “comparison game” would be a cause of contraction rather than expansiveness.

The latter, ironically. It was often pointed out that the transcendental ego cannot be thought of like something being present at hand that is set in opposition to a world. — Heiko

I can't grasp a concept of "transcendental ego". I see "ego" as a circular thought experience which also generates sensations which essentially causes contraction.

It's therefore a type of tension. "Ego" is a tension (or IS tension). This is why I refer to it as "ego-sensation". It is effectively a "sensation" we create ("we", meaning, our pattern of thinking).

This "ego-sensation" that is created by a habitual "pattern of thinking" creates contraction.

"Contraction" is like anti-relationship, in essence. It is a retreat from relationship. A form of defense or cowering, or a form of attack (as a consequence of feelings of defensiveness).

But overall is a contraction, as opposed to expansiveness (openness, perhaps).

And a second question: could it be that to look or otherwise sense is to try to create order? — frank

I think that is what existence is. Making order.

No, this just really appears that way because the consciousness of me being myself is often assumed to be something different from me being myself — Heiko

Assumed by you OF you? Or are you assuming others assumptions of you?

Your "no" says that on your assessment, no action of Trump's could be reasonably construed as his acting like a Russian agent. — tim wood

Correct. I don't construe him as having acted as a Russian agent.

It sounds like it is off to the gulag for me, according to your accusations of me.

Oh well. Good luck with that. I just feel grateful I do not live in your brain. It sounds like an awful place.

significance of the reports — tim wood

Not particularly interested in gossip, no.

but the relation between me an my being — Heiko

Are you presuming the existence of two things AS you?

If so, why complicate it so?

It might make for interesting philosophical discussions — Sam26

It is rational rather than philosophical.

Disputing it is like imagining one exists separate from the world or universe.

Just as it is irrational the concept which says, of these bodies, "we came into this world". Compared to a far more rational concept which says, of these bodies, "we came out of this world (as a leaf comes out from it's branch)".

So how we talk matters because it informs (the mind). Though it is not important to talk this way all the time but I think is important to understand.

I understand that our language is just a description of reality, and thus how we talk about reality. It doesn't follow from that that our description is reality. — Sam26

I agree it doesn't necessarily follow and nor do I recommend it does or should

You seem to want to talk about simple everyday explanations in a metaphysical way. If we spoke to each other in the way you seem to want too, we would never get anywhere with our talk — Sam26

I don't recommend at all we talk in this "metaphysical" way. This is a particular subject, however, we are talking about here.

This way of talking is merely for understanding sake. It is to, more or less, realize as, say, fundamental, and then forget. Once it is understood fundamentally it becomes like something running in the background.

In particular moments it can be brought back to attention as a form of realignment. It can be a way to address the ego-sensation - put the ego-sensation in it's proper subservient place (as not one's essential identity).

I don't find some of it plausible — Sam26

What I find implausible is the commonly presumed separate body-ego as one's essential identity.

The main reason, meaning perhaps the easiest reason to define, is that one's skin encapsulated body (the merely presumed "you") CANNOT exist separate from any experience that is said to be occurring OUTSIDE of this form (or inside this body-form, if it is an ache or a heartbeat, for example). .

Where should be the fundamental difference between pain as the content of consciousness and your pc? — Heiko

In terms of what or who you are during the experience within which the pc is a part, there is not a difference.

Any difference noticed is gradated accordingly based on attention. Attention shifts about. One's fundamental identity is all that which arises in any moment. All that which arises in consciousness, therefore, is "you".

The commonly and habitually presumed identity, one's apparent body, say, within a room, is merely an aspect of "you". The body commonly and habitually presumed to be "you" is one of many aspects within consciousness.

Consciousness, seen in this light, is essentially the entire space within which everything arises.

So.

Mueller investigative results to date, re: level of Russia’s influence on insignificant number of American voters.

The extent of Russian operative penetration consisted of placed Facebook ads.

(You know? The type of ads which barely anyone takes any notice of?)

Above meagre Russian operation took place on Obama’s watch.

Rosenstein has had to admit that No American has been shown to be involved in any Russian’s attempt to influence voters via such meagre means.

Outcome: Some political theatre and a good payday for many lawyers and media persons.

My point has obviously found it’s mark as indicated by your fear to reply to clear questions.

Difficult questions, eh?

Are you self-confessed low hanging fruit?

Lol. Are you invading my thread like a trump-bot? — frank

Ah. It's a solo thread.

The only moral path is pacifism. Comments? — frank

1. Are you able to describe this path or describe how it may not be comparable to a "engaging with historic enemies in negotiation and discussion" path?

2. Is engaging with historic enemies in negotiation and discussion not moral, in your opinion?

3. Is engaging with historic enemies in negotiation and discussion excluded as a viable path toward peaceful relations, in your opinion?

(re: Pacifism) Its just the assertion that all military ventures are immoral. — frank

4. Could engaging with historic enemies in negotiation and discussion be conceivably regarded as a move away from immoral military ventures, in your opinion?

Versions of pacifism: separate issue. IOW, the OP was an invitation to examine a certain question; not to examine me — frank

I was examining by asking the question as to what does applying a pacifist moral path look like?

Is it just a set of virtuous sounding words?

The only moral path is pacifism. Comments? — frank

You made the statement. You claim to know of versions of pacifism.

Is the “moral path” version the hardcore pacifists?

Historically, hardcore pacifists expect this "realization" to be a next step in human evolution. They would say war is too deeply embedded in human life to expect progress by small steps. — frank

Who are we therefore having a discussion with? A hardcore pacifist or some other version?

My what a tangled web we weave — creativesoul

It appears I have merely interrupted a conversation you were having with yourself.

Carry on.

Where's Snowden? — creativesoul

Russia. Why?

No. Pacifism is radical. It's about human potential. — frank

So it is not toward a realization of pacifism?

If pacifism is about "human potential" then surely there needs to be process instigated towards REALIZING the potential.

Is conversation, engagement with "the other", negotiation, NOT a process toward realizing the human potential for peace therefore pacifism?

If not why not?

Or do you mean "pacifism" is not something that requires to be actual but rather remains an ideal, like "heaven" or "utopia"? In a word, fantasy?

When you talk about it, you're merely describing the event, or describing the experience. We use the words to convey the experience to others — Sam26

In the most shorthand form we find. The issue is we tend to think our shorthand, our therefore merely convenient form of description, is itself what reality is.

I am not doing word games but words are all we have in order to do the conversation on these matters.

"I am sitting at my pc" is not what is occurring. It describes a picture that even we ourselves do not see in the moment of that particular experience.

So what is it, then, that is ACTUALLY occurring in that moment?

You do not see a you at the pc, correct?

A "you at your pc" is imagined. Then there is the conversation with another about that experience.

That conversation, then, merely describes to this other what you had imagined (and not what was actually occurring).

So back to what was actually occurring: In the experience described (imaginatively), "I am at my pc", was the entire experience of a room, a chair, perhaps breathing, perhaps a watery mouth, perhaps pain from some injury in an elbow, the temperature of the room, the sensation of touching the keypad, etc, etc, etc.

All those sensations above, the entire space within which all sensations arose, have to, by necessity, been "you".

There was never a "you" in a room, at a pc.

There was only ONE thing occurring, not a whole lot of separate things (with apparently merely one of those things being "you").

This ONE thing occurring is the entire experience. The entire experience IS "you".

"You" cannot, and does not, exist outside of or inside of any experience that is arising. "You" are never separate from experience. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! (if we are to talk of reality and not illusion).

The only phenomena which gives rise to the idea that "I am sitting at my pc" is merely THE IDEA itself.

THE IDEA (of "I am sitting at my pc") is the picture imagined. The picture is imagined for use merely as a description.

Let's face it. We do not even have to resort to imagine such a picture in order for the actual experience to occur.

The picture is just for data storage purposes, and therefore data for conversation beyond the actual experience.

So it is not word games, BUT, to define more accurately what is actually occurring requires a far greater amount of words (if asked to define, essentially).

So therefore we shorthand the experience into a convenient description.

The issue is JUST BECAUSE we use shorthand DOES NOT MAKE the shorthand what it actually was.

It is not reality, it is a version or shorthand conveniently imagined version of reality.

" It is still two objects, brain and vr headset."

Although "you", I argue, are the entire experience of "brain" and "vr headset". The dream is two objects or the "I" in the room.

"You" can only logically be whatever the entire experience is.

And this understanding, therefore, accommodates (not for simple convenience) a greater space within which POV can locate.

After all, an "outer body experience" often occurs as a result of a sudden impact-like trauma which therefore may JOLT one from the habit-of-mind state which constructs the common POV location experience (although an OBE can also eventuate via subtle shifts of consciousness, astral projection etc).

In that they are two different words. — Akanthinos

That often mean two different things and equate to two different actions.

Words DESCRIBE things, right?

But you are right, Obama failed on that one. War was the correct answer. Yall just too soft to ever have a hope to survive the nuclear post-apocalyptic wasteland. — Akanthinos

Which war was the correct answer?

Photons that the eyes gathers are turned into electrical and chemical signals that the brain then interprets. The data within the light that the eye gathers is what the consciousness sees.

Given our reams clearly draw from our memories it's not surprising that they usually conform to them in many ways — VagabondSpectre

As with dream-sleep, the same "chemical signals that the brain then interprets" therefore produce our "awake" dream experience with added dimensions (touch etc). It is all "data" either in dream-sleep or awake-sleep.

It is all on a spectrum of illusion. Senses denote points on that spectrum.

What if you're wearing a VR headset? — VagabondSpectre

Of course. Distance between objects is irrelevant. It is still two objects, brain and vr headset.

Gotta wonder why Clinton didn't use her future-crime-fighting superpowers to defeat Putin 4 years before he invaded Crimea. Would have solved soooo many problems. — Akanthinos

That happened under Obama's watch, right?

No positive influence ever from either Obama or his witch.

There is a difference between warmongering and negotiating.

Yeah. 2010 sure wasn't 2018. :lol:

Gotta wonder why Clinton didn't use her future-crime-fighting superpowers to defeat Putin 4 years before he invaded Crimea. Would have solved soooo many problems — Akanthinos

Clinton is always concerned about other countries she has had a hand in destroying

Our point of view is "located within the eyes" because that's where the light stimulus is gathered from. — VagabondSpectre

This does not take memory and it's impact on perception - impact on "consciousness" into account.

Can you answer, therefore, this question. From where is "the light" you speak of "gathered from" in order to generate the experience of dreams, in all their colors, shapes and 3 dimension during sleep? Remember it is usually dark and eyes are shut.

Analogously, when we're viewing a monitor of a security camera feed, the point of view is "located within the camera". — VagabondSpectre

Incorrect. While a monitor is viewed by "oneself" the point-of-view (POV) is located (habitually, imo) "within the eyes".

A camera and a monitor is, like the room they are in, merely part of that entire experience which is presumed to be the things we "see".

And "Analogously" refers to biology. A camera is not biological.

Interview With Vladimir Pozner of First Channel Television


Share
Interview
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Moscow, Russia
March 19, 2010


QUESTION: Alexander (inaudible): “What in your view is America’s place in the modern world? Is it a force aimed at supporting the world’s equilibrium? Or is it a force aimed at changing the status quo?”

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s both in this way, Vladimir. It is a force to sustain an equilibrium that permits countries and individuals to progress, to become more self-realizing. I mean, we want very much to have a strong Russia because a strong, competent, prosperous, stable Russia is, we think, in the interests of the world.

The “Russia” thing amounts to Facebook ads. That’s it!

Even Rosenstein has had to come out and say no American has been implicated in the “Russsia attempts to influence election” assertion.

I see your point, but how would that explain the experiences people are having in an NDE? Let me put it this way, there is no evidence that the extension of our body in the ways you describe, are extensions that would give rise to these kinds of experiences. And I agree that we don't perceive all that we are, in fact, I think NDEs give evidence that we are more than this body. — Sam26

NDE suggests to me that the “point of view” we typically associate as located within the eyes is more fluid than presumed.

“Point of view” from eye location, I think, is a habit of mind. It becomes a location that is expected. Memory of all past experience is data fed into the present thereby influences what is seen and experienced.