Mason Riggle

You're not selling it to me.. but you are admitting to it. Just saying 'Spira didn't buy it', is an admission that Harris' sale of materialism is valid... it's an admission that you think there is a 'material Ruper Spira' who buys things.

@Carl-Richard do you think Sam Harris and Rupert Spira exist, materially.. or are they just your dream?

@Carl-Richard no. How did Harris confront Spira?? Didn't he speak to him? Wasn't the 'speaking' the 'confrontation'?

@Carl-Richard if you think there is a 'both of us who can start confronting Rupert Spira', then you share the same materialistic bias. Do you see? To think there is a material person named Sam Harris who is a 'materialist'.. this in itself is indicative of the very same 'materialist' bias. It's like saying.. "In my dream, the dream character Sam Harris didn't fully understand that he was just my dream.. what a fool."

Any time anyone talks about the material world as if it's not 'just a dream' they sound like a materialist. You and I sound like materialists right now, because we are talking in a way that implies there is a material 'me' and a material 'you'.. and a material 'Sam Harris' who talks about brains.

Sam Harris is just your dream... but tell me more about what he (your dream) fundamentally doesn't get.

"..and they were alleging mostly that I was a Materialist, and that I'm somehow dogmatically opposed to the idea that mind might play some role in defining reality, or parts of it.. but that's just not true..." - Sam Harris

@Danioover9000 we might agree that 'Inciting an Insurrection' may turn out to be too difficult to prove, in which case lesser, more easily provable charges may be pursued in this case.. but I think that charging him under this specific law, which would bar him for holding office ever again.. is the best we can hope for.

I don't think the laws are ambiguous. Sure, the notion of 'insurrection' exists in a spectrum, but the laws are pretty clear. §2383. Rebellion or insurrection Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

@Danioover9000 not sure where we disagree. You seem to agree that Trump incited the mob that stormed that capitol. You say, "Donald Trump and others who were hanging back for inciting the mob".. I mean.. those are your words. Do you disagree with yourself? There are laws specifically for dealing with someone who incites an insurrection. Do you disagree that these are the laws? I shared the definition of an insurrection. Do you disagree with the definition? So who is it you disagree with? Me, or facts?

"The best we can hope for is charging.. Donald Trump and others who were... inciting the [insurrection]". Fixed it for ya.

@Danioover9000 §2383. Rebellion or insurrection Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. in·sur·rec·tion /ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/ Learn to pronounce noun a violent uprising against an authority or government. Do you think it was a 'proper insurrection' or no? I don't see the part where it says lots of people have to die for it to be a 'proper insurrection'.

@Danioover9000 "That bank robbery wasn't a proper bank robbery, more like angry demands for cash, because if it was a well planned bank robbery attempt, then millions would have been stolen." Just because you fail to accomplish a crime, because you are stopped during the commission of the crime, doesn't make it somehow 'less of a crime'.

It's a strange loop. The difference between 'real' and 'apparent' is apparently real.. it appears to be real. Differences are 'real' because they are 'imagined' to be.. they 'seem to be'.. they 'appear to be'. I've said it 100+ times now... Is this forum 'real' or does it just 'appear to be real'? What's the difference??? Is there a 'real difference' or is it just 'apparent difference'? What's the difference?

Zen Devils occur when they do, and they don't when they don't. Just like a whirlpool in a river, Zen Devils are not the cause of themselves. There isn't even really such a thing as a 'Zen Devil'.. Ego doesn't do anything.. it's imaginary and arbitrary. It too arises when it arises, and ceases when it ceases. Ego is not the cause of itself. Ego can not get rid of itself, but it can exist in such a way as to destroy itself. Ego IS something (thoughts).. it doesn't DO anything. There is only ever what is occurring, and there's nobody who's 'doing' any of it. Ego is a whirlpool thinking that it's the one swirling the water, without realizing that the whole river is just occurring how it is, and no part of the river is 'doing anything' beyond being how [the whole river] is being. (the whirlpool can't stop itself from swirling because it's not 'doing' it.) There is no whirlpool separate from 'that which is not the whirlpool'. You can't take a whirlpool out of a river and show it to me. You can't show me your ego.. There isn't one. What is often mistaken to be the thinker of thoughts is just more thought. What is often mistaken to be 'the doer' of what is occurring, is just more what is occurring. Nothing to do, no one to do it.

@King Merk whatever you decide.. you should do it sooner, rather than later. Consider your partner.. if you care about them, and understand that life is short, you can see that it's not fair to them to continue a relationship that has no future. You are wasting their time.. time which they could be spending finding what they want.

There is 'creation' which is what is occurring. Creator/Created is a (relative and arbitrary) duality. Just as there isn't really 'the front of a coin and the back of a coin'.. there is just 'the whole coin'.

for the same reason you think you are 'the whole body'.

@WokeBloke let's go back to my question about the trees. Do you think trees are aware of the Sun?

@WokeBloke And you are not 'part of the Universe'.. you are the whole Universe seeing parts of the Universe.

'Awareness' is sort of an abstract concept. Are trees 'aware' of the Sun? If not, how do they know what direction to face their leaves?

You - I think no part of the body is aware of the body. Also you - I infer that I must be seeing my body with my body as my body.

"There once was a boy who said though, it seems that I know that I know. But what I'd like to see, is the I who knows me, when I know that I know that I know." - Alan Watts

@WokeBloke you certainly have a way of putting words in my mouth. I didn't give my thoughts on whether or not the body is aware. I asked 10 questions.. none of which you even tried to answer. Where is the 'you' who is aware of your body?

@Vincent S probably.