My claims of red herring did not get flushed and in fact your statement;
It got flushed and I’ll flush your points again.
just corroborated my point!
No I didn’t just keep reading.
This debate has been about an individual's ability to transcend beyond the stimuli that originates in our brains.
Now read the following from SeriouslyThug which can be found on pg 3:
millions of people including people who have realized their "Self" still feel bodily pain and sickness as that is a natural part of the physical cycle of life and death.
Wave your point bye-bye!
First, not all "pain" is physical in nature. Pain can be both physical and emotional, and emotional pain does NOT involve tissue damage.
You need to start reading for context, following the flow of discussion and refrain from using bold points.
YOU were the one who mentioned physical pain when you said: “I think that people continually pushing their bodies beyond the limits of what is considered scientifically possible is testament to our growing ability to eliminate our own self imposed limitations. Self-immolation by Monks who use to set themselves on fire and sit silently until they died is evidence of our innate abilities to transcend pain.”
I never said all pain was physical in nature. When I said what I said it was in context to what you said about the monk setting himself on fire. Dhadnot then proceeded to reply to your post, and after that you responded him. I then responded to your response to him and told you to forget everything you were talking about and directed you back to what Dhadnot originally replied to and asked “Can the guy stop himself from being burned?” and then said “No he can't so what is all this transcending talk?”Again, start reading for context and follow the flow of discussion.
Secondly, our original discussion was about the ability to transcend emotional pain and originated with SerioulyThug's post;
Wrong. The original discussion can be found in the OP (make sure you read the last paragraph.) Also, you’re putting words in the mouth of SeriouslyThug and not following the flow of the conversation. You quoted ST and you make it seem as if he said what he said and was solely referring to emotional pain. However, you fail to consider that ST made that statement in response to Dhatnots post. So what was Dhadnots post? Read it:
I honestly believe that but the suffering of the flesh is unbearable
How’s that toilet looking now Mr. Nice Guy?
Suffering in the context of desire again does not cause tissue damage, so your argument that pain causes tissue damage and death and therefore negates our ability to transcend it is short-sighted, and in the context of our discussion, inaccurate.
But was Dhadnot talking about suffering in the context that Seriously Thug was? Hmmmm….let us take a look at some of his responses:
Reality is what a mind perceives, or how a mind interprets stimuli, but the actuality of things is that we are in a flesh chasis that feels pain and no amount of transcendence talk can destroy that actuality and the effects it brings about.
My point is the human condition is "suffering", as most of us know it, not those into science, transcedentalist, bodis and other assorted "specials", we need a practical way to minimize this suffering.
Now here is a key statement Dhadnot made and this is key. Why is this key? Because he understands what I’m saying to ST and shows that I know what point ST was trying to make.
But still transedence comes after you master the physiacl and mental, and to think that the masses of people can do this with the ease of saying transcend is asinine, this is why I side with Heresy's views on this topic.
How’s the water in the toilet?
As you said in your own post "all we're dealing with here is the subject of pain". The fact the Monk will die from the burns is completely irrelevant.
We are discussing the ability to transcend past feelings
We are not discussing the ability to transcend past death.
Wrong. Please refer to the flow of conversation and read everything I’ve typed up to this point.
My example of self-immolation was used as an example of an extreme case of an individual's control over a particular reaction that we regard as absolute and innate.
Physical pain…
The example was used to illustrate ONE instance of a human's ability to transcend a feeling. It was not meant to be the definitive case on transcendence.
The feeling of physical pain…
However, in an attempt to strengthen your position in the debate, you are focusing only on the feeling in that particular example and disregarding the entire spectrum of other possible feelings derived from the infinite possibility of other situations.
Wrong. I’m not focusing only on the feeling in the particular example. Why don’t you try reading my replies to the other people in this thread? The things you’ve presented have been openly covered with others or they have been implied.
If the monk in the example was in an entirely different situation that was providing him pleasure rather than pain (sitting in a warm bubble bath), and he was transcending past his feelings of pleasure into a state void of feelings and emotions then what would your position be? That we should "forget all this transcendence talk" because bubble baths lead to tissue damage and death?
False Dilemma, Straw Man and Slippery Slope.
Your argument doesn't hold up if we change the variables in the situation; yet the Monk has done the same thing in both situations.
See above. If you change the variables you have a different situation altogether because under normal use, a warm bubble bath will not lead to any type of tissue damage or death.
BTW, you can find the air freshner next to the plunger.
