Comentariile membrilor:

= andreea c
andreea cojocaru
[20.Sep.04 00:17]
Hi! I liked you entry quite a lot because, by making me think of the exact reasons that make me strongly disagree with your theories, I was also faced with some interesting issues. I will write here just a few thoughts. You ask – “What more can you ask of me than to reveal my inner essence for the sole pleasure of your entertainment”. I think there are many more things that I or anyone else could ask from you. I could ask you for example to use your mind and body to help ease other people’s suffering. I think that only when there will be no more children dying of starvation in this world should we finally allow ourselves the luxury of meditation on the inner suffering. Whether I also have a right to ask this from you or from anyone else is another matter.

You talk in the beginning about an “inner essence” and you identify it as “the sole possession that defines a person and its unique way of thinking”. So an ‘inner essence” is something that defines a person – I think this concept is too broad and when such abstract ideas get too abstract they loose their initial function, that of revealing something about reality. There are many things that define a person. Maybe you want to call all these things “inner essence”. But in this case I think you could use a more general term such as ‘personality’ or ‘individual characteristics’. Or maybe you want to say that there is something unique in each of us and that this unique thing is especially evident in our thinking. If this is it, than you have a whole lot more to explain because, as it stands now, your argument is defenseless in front of questions such as ‘how can you prove that that “uniqueness” is really unique? That it is not the same in all of us except that the means to express it differ from person to person?” And there is the large topic of the human subjective experience that lies ahead of you.

Note: I am not trying here to point out to you ways in which your thoughts are not fitting a “proper” theory. I am just trying say that you might want to reconsider some of the things that you seem so certain of by showing other ways of approaching these matters.

You then start talking a lot about death, and “its revelations and liberations”. I assume you see death as an end. I think an end is an end and it cannot be revelation nor liberation. You can see it as such for you inner motivation but I hope you do realize that doing this has a lot of traps. You are building concepts that are grounded on false ontological premises and, as far as I can see, you are using them to motivate certain aspects of your life.
I will stop here since this message is getting too long. These comments however only address the very beginning of your post. If they make any sense to you let me know and I will write more.

thanks

ps. How old are you, if you don’t mind me asking?

Pentru a putea adăuga comentarii trebuie sa vizionezi acest text în limba în care a fost înscris.

Foloseşte link-ul existent în pagină (lângă data înscrierii textului), sau alege limba corespunzătoare şi accesează din nou acest text.

De asemenea, nu poţi comenta din pagina care include comentariile off-topic.

Înapoi !

= andreea c	andreea cojocaru [20.Sep.04 00:17]
Hi! I liked you entry quite a lot because, by making me think of the exact reasons that make me strongly disagree with your theories, I was also faced with some interesting issues. I will write here just a few thoughts. You ask – “What more can you ask of me than to reveal my inner essence for the sole pleasure of your entertainment”. I think there are many more things that I or anyone else could ask from you. I could ask you for example to use your mind and body to help ease other people’s suffering. I think that only when there will be no more children dying of starvation in this world should we finally allow ourselves the luxury of meditation on the inner suffering. Whether I also have a right to ask this from you or from anyone else is another matter. You talk in the beginning about an “inner essence” and you identify it as “the sole possession that defines a person and its unique way of thinking”. So an ‘inner essence” is something that defines a person – I think this concept is too broad and when such abstract ideas get too abstract they loose their initial function, that of revealing something about reality. There are many things that define a person. Maybe you want to call all these things “inner essence”. But in this case I think you could use a more general term such as ‘personality’ or ‘individual characteristics’. Or maybe you want to say that there is something unique in each of us and that this unique thing is especially evident in our thinking. If this is it, than you have a whole lot more to explain because, as it stands now, your argument is defenseless in front of questions such as ‘how can you prove that that “uniqueness” is really unique? That it is not the same in all of us except that the means to express it differ from person to person?” And there is the large topic of the human subjective experience that lies ahead of you. Note: I am not trying here to point out to you ways in which your thoughts are not fitting a “proper” theory. I am just trying say that you might want to reconsider some of the things that you seem so certain of by showing other ways of approaching these matters. You then start talking a lot about death, and “its revelations and liberations”. I assume you see death as an end. I think an end is an end and it cannot be revelation nor liberation. You can see it as such for you inner motivation but I hope you do realize that doing this has a lot of traps. You are building concepts that are grounded on false ontological premises and, as far as I can see, you are using them to motivate certain aspects of your life. I will stop here since this message is getting too long. These comments however only address the very beginning of your post. If they make any sense to you let me know and I will write more. thanks ps. How old are you, if you don’t mind me asking?