Science And Metaphysics

[Khandro]

I read from, 'Sämtliche Werke und Briefe in Vier Bänden', a biography of the Berlin German woman poet; Mascha Kaléko, that in 1952 she sent one of her poems to Albert Einstein, the opening line was; "Time stands still. It is us who are passing away".
Einstein replied: "I think your poem is very beautiful and rich in meaning. It touches upon a deep metaphysical problem that has become relevant through physics".
What do you think he meant by that?

[jim360]

You know, sometimes I don't get you SIQ.

[naomi24]

As a student, I vividly recall taking part in a long debate, the question, ‘Do we exist?’ – the conclusion – 'No, we don’t'. I can’t remember how that conclusion was reached, but it was. How daft! :o)

[pixie373]

Lol... i wish I'd known that before i paid my tax bill!

[Khandro]

naomi; If you think the conclusion was daft, you obviously didn't argue you case well enough :-)

[naomi24]

Khandro, oh but I did! I argued from a purely philosophical perspective. That's why the conclusion was daft!

[Khandro]

Maybe the rest of the class were Zen Buddhists :-)
http://www.existentialbuddhist.com/tag/not-self/

[jomifl]

Nice to know that the Bhudda agrees with me (if he still exists).

[ludwig]

// ‘Do we exist?’ – the conclusion – 'No, we don’t'. //

You have to exist to be able to conclude that you don't.

[naomi24]

Ludwig, there you go - ruining it with logic! :o)

[jim360]

As conclusions go, that's fairly surprising. My personal favourite was the debate that concluded "the world would be a better place without religion" in a C. of E. school. Clearly the people there were more radical than I thought!

[solvitquick]

Re Buddha's silent response to to Vacchagotta.
I note that he explained his silence to his personal attendant Ananda. Pity he did not respond to Vacchagotta similarly.
But his first point to Ananda is surely wrong today!
I.e.: "If I were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests and contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism."
Nope! False explanation today.
See posts by Naomi, and ludwig and even Descartes who can say "yes" to the existence of "self" without conforming to exponents of eternalism.
SIQ.

[jomifl]

Quite so SIQ, now I've got to look up eternalism because for sure it won't be as simple as it sounds.,

[jomifl]

By the way although the Bhudda appears to agree with me, I don't necessarily agree with him.:0)

[solvitquick]

Ty jomifl. Nice to know that someone "gets me" unlike my highly respected contributor jim360. That post was really disappointing to me.
SIQ.

[Khandro]

I looked up Eternalism on the online dictionary and was re-directed to Block Time - "The period from the moment the chocks are withdrawn and brakes released, or moorings dropped, to the return to rest or take-up of moorings after the flight."
Does this help jomifl?

[jomifl]

This would be a flight of fancy I presume?

[jim360]

I'm sorry if it was disappointing to you, but what I suppose I mean by it is that sometimes your posts are just confusing. Maybe it's their style, maybe it's the apparent U-turns and contradictions, maybe it's just the way I read it. Whatever it is, I "don't get" some of your posts. They confuse me.

[solvitquick]

Lol Naomi & Luwig.
Mixed nuts anyone?
SIQ.

[solvitquick]

Aaaw jim forget it. You may well be right of course, in fact from your viewpoint you must be.
The problem with these long threads with various side-tracks one can answer a question which was not addressed to you at all but yup! fair earlier comment. I'll try to learn from it.
Kind regards,
SIQ.

[naomi24]

Mixed nuts it is. ;o)