From: oldernow@dev.null   
      
   On 2024-05-10, D  wrote:   
      
   >>> True... but   
   >>   
   >> True *but*? Doesn't the latter word at least somewhat   
   >> nullify the former? How can there be any "buts" about   
   >> truth?   
   >   
   > Beats me! ;)   
      
   Well, then, next time I need to beat you, I'll be sure to   
   type the words "true but" in succession!   
      
   >> All I can think (haha) is you pick one model, consider it   
   >> The Reality, and stick to it. Serious attempts at trying   
   >> to "get to the bottom of it" seem to necessarily lead   
   >> to this madness being represented in this attempt to put   
   >> "it" (double quotes indicate not being sure "it" is some   
   >> reality, or a model...) in words.   
   >   
   > Well, all models are not equal. There is one model, par   
   > excellence, that seems to tower above all others, and that   
   > is the one where there actually is an external reality,   
   > that can serve as common ground for truth, which can be   
   > communicated with language and investigated by science.   
   >   
   > No one in 2500 years has been able to credibly disprove   
   > that model.   
      
   Modeldolatry. Got it.    
      
   >>> Actually, I read an article a year ago, about some pirate   
   >>> place in a basement out side Stockholm where a woman sold   
   >>> McT for therapeutic purposes, illegally.   
   >>>   
   >>> And I always think about if the people just get hooked on   
   >>> the experience, and thereby disregard, _what the experience   
   >>> is leading to_.   
   >>>   
   >>> I think the buddha warned against psychic powers, healing   
   >>> and stuff, calling it a distraction from the end goal of   
   >>> enlightenment. Sometimes I wonder if buddha wouldn't warn   
   >>> against getting hooked on McT as well?   
   >>   
   >> Well, okay... I should have read further. In other words,   
   >> *EXACTLY*.  Except that the "getting hooked on" part is   
   >> incidental. The part about distraction was what I meant by   
   >> "deepening of delusion".   
   >   
   > Got it! =) I think trying to convince others that there   
   > is no external world also counts as a distraction. ;)   
      
   "I"'m on a complicated trip, dude ;-) in that one of   
   the "others" in my model of reality speaks as though a   
   free-willed being fully convinced of an external world,   
   which "I" considers a sort of nagging pebble in the sock of   
   a shoe'd foot attempting to re-convince me of the reality   
   of an external world, primarily because "I" has yet to let   
   go of "i" (see also: ), i.e. the model of "I"   
   (aka ineffability). It's just this weird game, and it's   
   played with re-presentation atoms usually referred to as   
   "words".   
      
   In other words, "I" have no idea why "you" insisted we go   
   back to the topic of transcendence again.... ;-)   
      
   --   
   oldernow   
   xyz001 at nym.hush.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)