You responded to my previous Dylan video with a Dylan reference, so that was what came to mind when I thought of Dylan again. How's the weather [in Palm Springs]? Seriously.
Do you want me to answer it again, slow-poke? How about you read 5943?
Right, but not how’s the weather in Palm Springs? Unless you wanna know the political climate in Palm Springs.
But instead of asking about the corruption out there (since all politics are corrupted), why don’t you look for the corruption in yourself?
The essence of all corruption in within oneself.
That’s the point: you do not see the corruption in yourself. You cannot search for it. It is there, in consciousness: you either see it or you don’t.
The so-called ‘heart’ is a misnomer.
You can only see the corruption after it’s already gone!!!
If you think you see it in yourself, you’re actually musing about it, not seeing it.
No one can. That would just be thinking them up, creating them and judging them.
Seeing is something else.
Multiple discussions can take place. No one is stopping you from discussing about the perfect chess game. You just need to skip over that which you don’t care about. Problem solved.
Troy, do you think there is any benefit to admitting to flaws when you recognize them? Even if you do not know if that flaw is still present at the moment that you admit it.
Seeing is not recognition either.
Outwardly you look at a tree and you recognize it’s a tree. You did not create the tree.
But inwardly you do create the flaws. It is all one movement, you, the flaws, all that.
It is only when that movement ends that seeing is possible. But then the flaws are not, since the movement is gone, and flaws were a part of that.
So when you really see, what is there to see?
The creator of chess? I think legend has it that he was killed by the king he created the game for.
The creator of chess had no idea either.
Troy, do you think there is any benefit to admitting to flaws when you recognize them? Even if you do not know if that flaw is still present at the moment that you admit it.
Seeing is not recognition either.
Outwardly you look at a tree and you recognize it’s a tree. You did not create the tree.
But inwardly you do create the flaws. It is all one movement, you, the flaws, all that.
It is only when that movement ends that seeing is possible. But then the flaws are not, since the movement is gone, and flaws were a part of that.
So when you really see, what is there to see?
I said recognize, not see.
Instead of correcting the things I didn't say, why not address what I did say?
You are being illogical, again.
In order to recognize, you must first see. You must first see shapes and forms before you recognize it’s a tree.
But inwardly, if you really see, recognition is not.
Therefore, your question is improper for me. Inwardly, recognition does not occur, because memory is not involved in seeing.
Would you like to offer an example of a flaw of your own that you recognize?
The question is improper again, in general, not just for me this time.
If you realized what you are, you wouldn’t ask that. You are introducing a separation that exists only in your fantasy: between you and your qualities/flaws.
Slow-poke, I am not talking about physical seeing. You’re completely lost. I’ve made this observation many a time, but you are so slow...
Watch your crooked thinking:
So you tell me to recognize flaws in me. I explain that seeing is not the same as recognition, then you tell me you didn’t say seeing, I explain that in order to recognize you must first see—and now you switch to visual, auditive and olfactive perception.
So to demonstrate that seeing is not necessary for recognizing flaws you switch to visual perception and crookedly equate the two.
‘See, you don’t need seeing in order to recognize.’
But the slow-poke was so slow, he didn’t even realize the trick thinking was playing. What can you ask about religious tricks! Way too complicated to detect for this cunning thought.process.
Go on, keep introducing a separation that exists only in your head: between a ‘you’ and ‘your flaws’. As usual, you are missing the most important element.
A flaw that I recognize in my chess play is that I abhor draws. I would rather play for a win in a drawn position than accept a draw offer if I have any perceived advantage.
Learn to love points and those half points will seem more worthwhile!
Or not: if you ‘have any perceived advantage’ , go for a win!
If you keep losing, either sharpen your technique or else improve your evaluation skills! Better yet, do both.
Or like Fischer, who notoriously hated draws. It depends on your perception. On your willingness to compromise. As a person, in life, which includes chess.
A flaw that I recognize in my chess play is that I abhor draws. I would rather play for a win in a drawn position than accept a draw offer if I have any perceived advantage.
Adding in that last phrase makes your position a pretty common outlook. It's also contradictory, however. If you have any perceived advantage, it's not a drawn position for you...
You seem to have a poor memory (visually or otherwise). I’ve already answered it. But your dreaming mind can’t stay with the present when it encounters it: it keeps escaping the present moment.
No wonder your reply seemed off: you’ve completely skipped the answer.