blueprint

instantly downvoted lol

have a look at something called structural dissociation theory. there's a PhD Janina Fisher, who is some thing of a genius using it in treatment. It's a known trauma symptom.

Anyone know how this would play with at-rest encryption extensions?

because they're oh so disturbing

the same reason why so many other disturbing things go unstudied

like certain risks to our survival, for example

i think it's a vuln humans have

Yeah I mean if they have nothing to hide why did they evolve shapeshifting

I bet it cloaks.

What if the nature of consciousness is you can't falsify any proper definition of it? Would you reject its possible correctness? Sounds like a blind spot - perhaps the only one you have left?

no self is still a self

the diamond sutra's point aiui is that what we call a self isnt a self in that a true self does not exist independently (from the causes, such as its essential nature, its foundation, and its environment)

i might even say a self has an essential nature defined by an origin which is composed of relationships. you can find all examples in nature if you look a little.

> It’s all part of one of the central themes that accumulating merit is for the phenomenal world and ultimately meaningless for the transcendent.

I feel confused about something.

Even though you've read the prajnaparamita sutra and words like 'form is emptiness, emptiness is form', you say there is a phenomenal world and a transcendent world. But the phenomenal world can't be impermanent if it is not born and doesn't die. Although possibly apocryphal, the sutra of immeasurable meanings has a sentence like the nature of true reality is that appearance and no appearance not apart from each other. That is to say, it seems that the things like Bodhisattvas referenced in the Lotus Sutra may need to be understood with the background training that transcendent wisdom means that the phenomenal world is the transcendent world. It isn't that they don't exist but that Buddha's enlightenment was explained, as you know, to not have been obtaining anything distinct. I take it to mean that enlightenment needs to be in and about the entirety of real life.

It's been said sometimes to be a waste of time to debate whether a certain thing exists or doesn't exist because, for one, a thing cannot be said to exist to anything else in the universe if it is totally isolated, i.e. not been localized by any other system yet, and cannot be entangled with. A controlled experiment could be said to basically mean "one unknown to vary (hopefully)". But entanglement is a reality.

"Anyone who, for even a moment, gives rise to a pure and clear confidence upon hearing these words of the Tathagata, the Tathagata sees and knows that person, and they will attain immeasurable merit because of this understanding."

independent

doesnt say it's not an object

especially as combined with Buddha's explanation in his subsequent Lotus Sutra that he realized he was like the father of all beings, I find the recent discovery of treatment for structural dissociation and parts work to be a highly interesting corollary to the Diamond Sutra.

https://janinafisher.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/structur...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07RHQ9GFZ

wait til you read the lotus sutra. you'll find out what maha yana means.

because merit is not to be seen by signs. that's the whole point and what makes it so cosmic scale.

may i suggest moving onto the lotus sutra. it will clarify some stuff.

> People who don’t see their nature and try to stop their thinkings all the time are great sinful poeple and fools. They will fall into the Memoryless-Emptiness. They’re like drunks. They cannot tell good from evil. If you intend to practice non-doing, you have to see your nature before you can put an end to all states and conditions. To attain the Buddha’s Way without seeing your nature is impossible. Still others commit all sorts of evil deeds, claiming karma doesn’t exist. They erroneously maintain that since everything is empty committing evil isn’t wrong. Such persons fall into a hell of endless darkness with no hope of release.

http://www.buddhism.org/bodhi-dharmas-bloodstream-sermon/

who Zen now calls the first patriarch, but who was kicked out by many people while he was alive.

perhaps we shouldn't be so arrogant to think we're somehow immune now? but it's natural for people not to know how much more profound enlightenment is when they haven't encountered the real dharma yet.

One of the problems with following teachings that aren't right is the risk of losing oneself. It's a fact that many people spoke words under the name of Buddha, like Watts. So how on earth can we pretend that he has not introduced any % of falsehood to the right teaching while he passes it down? The alternative is that Watts is pretending to supreme enlightenment, which I have not heard of him having done.

My question as to what it means for things to happen pertains specifically to the original article talking about the meaning of "time". Instead what we've got is absolute ambiguity that amounts to "don't worry about it, just chill". That sounds like self-loss to me. Self-loss starts with loss of consciousness. That can happen when people learn the degenerated truth (it's like a rotten apple for a consciousness, shall we say).

he was an alcoholic who popularized words he didn't understand - he took the above from the diamond scripture, clearly

and Watts doesn't say much in answer my question - but rather guided people towards self-loss (after which he didn't have to worry about answering questions)

What does it mean for something to "happen"? it goes back to the reason why the OP article suggests state evolution by time emerges from entanglement.

ok but what does it mean for anything to "happen"?

surprised not to have found any reference to structural dissociation theory here

https://janinafisher.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/structur...

https://a.co/d/7UOPYoR

downvoted? was my argument too accurate? if this is where the smartest people hang out, humanity is clearly ill.

tell that to the species we caused to go extinct

Too bad this one never took off - it looked amazing at the time

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/3/16082864/treble-fm-social-...

naive or crazy- I'll let you choose :p

no, not to my eyes. you said,

> at some point we decided all that was ok

> At some point we decided to elect people who would turn against us

> At some point we decided we don’t care about right and wrong,

All of those things are about no longer being in control, and they are not even necessarily true statements. Who is "we", exactly?

> But it does seem like it's still very widely used, so I assume there must be something about it people really like.

this is very dangerous and flawed reasoning. There are many examples of where this goes horribly wrong. One of the nice ones is something called normalcy bias. but hey, let's just vote to murder Socrates again because he acknowledged that he was intentionally triggering us as an act of love.

this actually sounds like the sort of thing they might do if some master key that they were storing for some subset of accounts was internally breached, and they had to force a password reset on them.

that has nothing to do with it. There are a ton of React implementations, some by third parties, that are not complex. React has also changed majorly multiple times. I don't know how experienced you are, but that should tell you something (bad). It means they don't know what it really is and what they're building. That's another way of saying they don't know what they're doing. unless by complex, you mean that they're good at scamming people. Because that's pretty much what the company that made it is all about, in case you didn't notice.

Vue is vanilla JS - it is a construct of vanilla JS - so it is not what I'm talking about when we talk about generations of languages etc. You still interact with it procedurally or imperatively.

Overall, Vue is honest. React is decidedly not.

that's not even true, but I hate to break it to you, but literally every generation of language involves handling events unless you get into constraint systems which, as I mention, are for people who dont want to use the greater capability of the underlying generation.

wish people would be honest. it's obviously true that not every framework is trying to be avoidant about their lack of program skills. Some of them are actually useful. where I draw the line is forcing all of your application code to conform to a poorly thought out, half baked solution to reactive data flow, which doesn't even solve that particular problem and leaves you having to handle events anyway.

Thanks for the downvoted tho.

it's the same thing. and you still have to manually sync to the exact same degree using these frameworks or not. state setting is part of the von neumann architecture itself so it appears directly in all programming languages you use. so the problem you say you're using them to solve isn't the problem.

your only problem with events is you dont know how to write code that remains simple

react and view frameworks arent the solution to that problem. react isnt even reactive - you still have to deal with event -> repaint.

react only tried to obscure that into a constraint language instead while actually hamstringing you and pushing the complexity elsewhere

events are here to stay and that's a good thing. these reactive frameworks borne out of an attempt to avoid events or complexity don't eliminate events or complexity - they make everything into an event or a necessarily complex structure in their attempt at pathological avoidance. the solution is factoring and proper honesty in your semantic names. but most people would rather blame their (very ample) tools than their skill or laziness or apathy.

i will say async/await is a big help for humans but synchronous code vs asynch as you may know is not the problem at hand here.

Like I said, I was not involved at all in bringing the patriot act into existence and no one gave feedback on it. And it looks like almost literally every single person who doesn't want it to be an existence has absolutely no say about whether it is still operational. So your reply is incorrect. if you tried to vote someone in who removed such things, your effort would be sabotaged and we have seen this multiple times. and it's obvious the so-called representatives know that we don't want it. So it is very clear that I am not even counterargued by your reply. do you have some attachment to believing that you're actually in control of your government right now? it's like people have lost their minds these days. Even the people who think they know what the hell they're talking about.