Emily, His button was pushed that's why. Or, it could be for no reason at all.
JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@...> wrote: > > Awww Barry, were you having a bad day? (Sorry, I tend to skip around when > scanning information.) Â Your subsequent posts were significantly better. Â > > > ________________________________ > From: turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 12:29 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Difference between existence and consciousness > is creativity. > > > Â > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > According to MMY, everything is based in consciousness. > > > > > If there wasn't any consciousness, there wouldn't be any > > > > > existence or creativity. So, for any universe to manifest, > > > > > IMO there would have to be a consciousness to create width, > > > > > length, and height, at the very least. The dimension of > > > > > time could be optional. IOW, this universe would be > > > > > similar to an empty box and nothing else. > > > > > > > > But why would there need to be a consciousness? There are > > > > simpler ways to get the universe going without recourse to > > > > anything mystical. > > > > > > Not to mention the concept of an eternal, never-created > > > universe. I know from past interactions that John is > > > incapable of entertaining even the thought of this, but > > > since you're new here I thought I'd see if you could > > > swing behind this idea. > > > > Barry, > > > > You are actually a closet theist and don't even know it. > > And you're a terrified little boy who needs to believe > that there is a Big Daddy In The Sky to sleep well at > night. Which would be merely pitiable if you didn't > have a similar need to debate others about the fairy > tales you believe in to try to convince them they're > something more than fairy tales. > > There. Now we've both gotten what we really think of > each other out of our systems. :-) > > > Since you believe the universe is eternal and never-created, > > you then believe that the universe is the Knower, the Process > > of Knowing, and the Known by Itself. > > Bzzzzzzt. Does not compute. I believe *nothing* about > those three made-up concepts you just spouted. And > even if I did they would have nothing to do with the > nature of the universe. They're just silly ideas, > opinions spouted by silly humans. > > > IOW, It knows and maintains the dimensions of space and time. > > "It," meaning the universe, neither "knows" nor > "maintains" diddelysquat. I don't believe that the > universe is sentient; that's YOUR fantasy. :-) > > It's just an eternal machine that was never created > and has no purpose. In that sense, if the universe > *were* sentient (it's not, as far as I can tell), > its lack of purpose would put it several notches > above puny humans who feel that *their* purpose > was to understand the universe's, which doesn't > exist. :-) > > > As such, It is a Being, albeit an impersonal one. So, you > > actually believe in an Impersonal Eternal Being. > > John, I suggest that you keep your dualist fantasies > to yourself, and try not to embarrass yourself by > trying to convince others that they're more than > fantasies. The universe is not a being of any kind. > It's an It. What happens within that It just happens; > there is no Plan behind it, and no intelligence > guiding it. Shit just happens. > > Some of us are comfortable with that. Others (like > yourself) seem to feel that they need a fantasy god > or being who runs things to explain shit just happening. > Cool, I guess, if that makes you feel better. But don't > expect others to pretend that your fantasies are real > just because you do. >
