|
Presence
May 16, 2023 15:17:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 16, 2023 15:17:39 GMT
Is it just an effect? Or this is something more, than just a feeling? Can we perceive or to feel the reality, the world around us more closer? It might be that all the time we've been living the life never even think about the presence in it. So, let's say we felt something that was closer to the presence, was it en effect, or some kind of another psychological trick, or this was more, than that?
What is also notable is that a person doesn't require to have devices or some other tools to do this, it's able to star doing it wherever you are. The problem is – how to do it, and how true is it. And the most dramatically here is that logical thinking here seems not a good friend – it's something inside, something very intimate.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 17, 2023 23:09:05 GMT
Is it just an effect? Or this is something more, than just a feeling? Can we perceive or to feel the reality, the world around us more closer? It might be that all the time we've been living the life never even think about the presence in it. So, let's say we felt something that was closer to the presence, was it en effect, or some kind of another psychological trick, or this was more, than that? What is also notable is that a person doesn't require to have devices or some other tools to do this, it's able to star doing it wherever you are. The problem is – how to do it, and how true is it. And the most dramatically here is that logical thinking here seems not a good friend – it's something inside, something very intimate. Presence is just 'is-ness' or rather the acceptance of things 'as is'. Logic can be used for this. Irrationality can be used for this. But paradoxically 'using' anything to do this is to separate oneself from the presence by that action of 'use' as that which is doing the 'using' is tossed aside.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 18, 2023 15:39:48 GMT
Is it just an effect? Or this is something more, than just a feeling? Can we perceive or to feel the reality, the world around us more closer? It might be that all the time we've been living the life never even think about the presence in it. So, let's say we felt something that was closer to the presence, was it en effect, or some kind of another psychological trick, or this was more, than that? What is also notable is that a person doesn't require to have devices or some other tools to do this, it's able to star doing it wherever you are. The problem is – how to do it, and how true is it. And the most dramatically here is that logical thinking here seems not a good friend – it's something inside, something very intimate. Presence is just 'is-ness' or rather the acceptance of things 'as is'. Logic can be used for this. Irrationality can be used for this. But paradoxically 'using' anything to do this is to separate oneself from the presence by that action of 'use' as that which is doing the 'using' is tossed aside. I see. That is true. However, I wouldn't agree about paradoxical since there are no paradoxes, except for our mind being devoured by language plague into the dark chamber of falsely chances.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on May 19, 2023 2:10:21 GMT
Everyone has and leaves behind a certain presence in this world. The more a person involves themselves in the world the bigger presence they leave behind. The ones that just live and pass on by like the wind as in here one day and gone the next just basically dwelt in the moment. Others actually lived in the moment. They took their presence here and obsorbed the world. They thought about things a lot like philosophy. And each leaves behind either a good or bad presence based on their actions of how they "dwelt" or "lived" in the world.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on May 19, 2023 14:49:14 GMT
Is it just an effect? Or this is something more, than just a feeling? Can we perceive or feel the reality, the world around us, more closely? It might be that all the time we've been living the life never even think about the presence in it. So, let's say we felt something that was closer to the presence, was it en effect, or some kind of another psychological trick, or this was more, than that? What is also notable is that a person doesn't require to have devices or some other tools to do this, it's able to star doing it wherever you are. The problem is – how to do it, and how true is it. And the most dramatically here is that logical thinking here seems not a good friend – it's something inside, something very intimate. Historical notes about THE WORLD AROUND US. -- The Stoics: the universe/world is that in which we move, live, and have our being. -- Heidegger: Man is Dasein -- being there; that is, his very essence is to be in the world together with others....// They say the same thing, from opposite standpoints, and assert much more than presence.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2023 19:43:16 GMT
Presence is just 'is-ness' or rather the acceptance of things 'as is'. Logic can be used for this. Irrationality can be used for this. But paradoxically 'using' anything to do this is to separate oneself from the presence by that action of 'use' as that which is doing the 'using' is tossed aside. I see. That is true. However, I wouldn't agree about paradoxical since there are no paradoxes, except for our mind being devoured by language plague into the dark chamber of falsely chances. To doubt something requires one to first acknowledge it, this same logic applies to your stance on language.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2023 19:44:01 GMT
Everyone has and leaves behind a certain presence in this world. The more a person involves themselves in the world the bigger presence they leave behind. The ones that just live and pass on by like the wind as in here one day and gone the next just basically dwelt in the moment. Others actually lived in the moment. They took their presence here and obsorbed the world. They thought about things a lot like philosophy. And each leaves behind either a good or bad presence based on their actions of how they "dwelt" or "lived" in the world. If it is a thing it passes. Presence is a thing.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 4, 2023 6:19:23 GMT
Everyone has and leaves behind a certain presence in this world. The more a person involves themselves in the world the bigger presence they leave behind. The ones that just live and pass on by like the wind as in here one day and gone the next just basically dwelt in the moment. Others actually lived in the moment. They took their presence here and obsorbed the world. They thought about things a lot like philosophy. And each leaves behind either a good or bad presence based on their actions of how they "dwelt" or "lived" in the world. If it is a thing it passes. Presence is a thing. Yes, but doesn't neccesarily mean that it might always be forgotten especially if preserved in like a history textbook or something.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 21, 2023 18:04:53 GMT
If it is a thing it passes. Presence is a thing. Yes, but doesn't neccesarily mean that it might always be forgotten especially if preserved in like a history textbook or something. History is an interpretation and interpretations change when new facts are present. Dually history is forgotten, and often not read. Just ask a person on the street for the first ten presidents.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 23, 2023 22:33:38 GMT
Yes, but doesn't neccesarily mean that it might always be forgotten especially if preserved in like a history textbook or something. History is an interpretation and interpretations change when new facts are present. Dually history is forgotten, and often not read. Just ask a person on the street for the first ten presidents. I can't just ask a random person about anything unless it was a major event. But like let's say what were all the incidents that occured at a forest in a village in Ukraine from the moment a human entered it till now? We don't know. I just know there was some death of a child there that villagers spoke off but I'd like to know all the details and where he is buried there but that is forgotten apparently since it was long ago. But would help knowing since I entered that forest alone as a kid too and could have died like that boy did. But yeah I can't get those details of history since it isn't major enough and people don't know much or the ones living now don't know anything. And any info I get now could be false or partly true so not crazy reliable.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 28, 2023 23:32:20 GMT
History is an interpretation and interpretations change when new facts are present. Dually history is forgotten, and often not read. Just ask a person on the street for the first ten presidents. I can't just ask a random person about anything unless it was a major event. But like let's say what were all the incidents that occured at a forest in a village in Ukraine from the moment a human entered it till now? We don't know. I just know there was some death of a child there that villagers spoke off but I'd like to know all the details and where he is buried there but that is forgotten apparently since it was long ago. But would help knowing since I entered that forest alone as a kid too and could have died like that boy did. But yeah I can't get those details of history since it isn't major enough and people don't know much or the ones living now don't know anything. And any info I get now could be false or partly true so not crazy reliable. So if all the smaller facts are hidden, and the great facts are composed of these small facts we don't know, then the great facts have foundations we cannot see thus leaving the foundations of history on obscurity.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jul 7, 2023 6:09:42 GMT
I can't just ask a random person about anything unless it was a major event. But like let's say what were all the incidents that occured at a forest in a village in Ukraine from the moment a human entered it till now? We don't know. I just know there was some death of a child there that villagers spoke off but I'd like to know all the details and where he is buried there but that is forgotten apparently since it was long ago. But would help knowing since I entered that forest alone as a kid too and could have died like that boy did. But yeah I can't get those details of history since it isn't major enough and people don't know much or the ones living now don't know anything. And any info I get now could be false or partly true so not crazy reliable. So if all the smaller facts are hidden, and the great facts are composed of these small facts we don't know, then the great facts have foundations we cannot see thus leaving the foundations of history on obscurity. Yeah can all the great facts be fully trusted? I hear people say that when a person makes up a fake story it will still have something of truth it in but overall will be false. With that being said there's the story of Titanic. I heard another verson of it that the Titanic was made on an old ship that was just remade and renamed. However, in that same story I also read that like a crew member who was on that old ship came to set foot in the new ship and was certain it was the same ship he travelled on before just remade to look differently to fool people. The old ship also had flaws so he noticed those flaws too and that they were not fully fixed. So yeah is the Titanic story we currently read truly correct?
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Jul 9, 2023 21:13:33 GMT
The Titanic was built by Harland & Wolff and the British shipping company White Star Line. There are many newspaper articles from that time period following the progress of the "unsinkable" ship being built and many interviews with the people that help build the ship. Having said that, was the workmanship shoddy, I do not know. There was much controversy as to why the captain continued to steam ahead at such a high speed after being informed of the heightened dangers of icebergs ahead.
|
|
|
Presence
Jul 10, 2023 12:04:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 10, 2023 12:04:50 GMT
Is it just an effect? Or this is something more, than just a feeling? Can we perceive or feel the reality, the world around us, more closely? It might be that all the time we've been living the life never even think about the presence in it. So, let's say we felt something that was closer to the presence, was it en effect, or some kind of another psychological trick, or this was more, than that? What is also notable is that a person doesn't require to have devices or some other tools to do this, it's able to star doing it wherever you are. The problem is – how to do it, and how true is it. And the most dramatically here is that logical thinking here seems not a good friend – it's something inside, something very intimate. Historical notes about THE WORLD AROUND US. -- The Stoics: the universe/world is that in which we move, live, and have our being. -- Heidegger: Man is Dasein -- being there; that is, his very essence is to be in the world together with others....// They say the same thing, from opposite standpoints, and assert much more than presence. We're not just a part of this reality, right? Do I understand correctly Heidegger if to say that he means we are not there as thr other particles, but rather as co-workers of this universe? Because I also might be wrong, but at least some of stoics said that we had our inner fire in us, the sense or something, and our task was to reveal it (make it explicit) for to flow with the whole universe... I mean for the stoics we must act as the nature supposes us to act? While Heidegger doesn't say that our will should be coordinated or manipulated by the nature? (And that's why he didn't view the science or naturalist so warm, right?) I just don't know about them many things, that's why I'm asking.
|
|
|
Presence
Jul 10, 2023 12:10:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 10, 2023 12:10:59 GMT
The Titanic was built by Harland & Wolff and the British shipping company White Star Line. There are many newspaper articles from that time period following the progress of the "unsinkable" ship being built and many interviews with the people that help build the ship. Having said that, was the workmanship shoddy, I do not know. There was much controversy as to why the captain continued to steam ahead at such a high speed after being informed of the heightened dangers of icebergs ahead. As I remember in the James Cameron's movie the captain agreed with the sponsor of the ship (unfortunately, I don't remember the names), and that was to impress the publicity that the ship was even faster and more powerful, than they could imagine, so that perhaps was the reason. However, I guess that the life is full of surprises, and we don't know what's gonna happen tomorrow. Besides, in the mentioned movie the ship-watchers were focusing not on the foggy waters ahead, but rather on the kissing couple. So, Leo & his girlfriend was taken as an indirect reason that the watchers didn't spot the iceberg in time. I guess.
|
|