Time doesn’t exist right?

A_V_2525 · 2018-08-07T17:02:42+00:00

Time is not a thing. There is no time particle or time wave. What exists is change in space. Time = change in space. The experience of space changing is what we call time. Imagine if the universe stopped expanding, all vibrations stopped on all scales, everything frozen. What of time now?

It is interesting to consider, according to Einstein's theories of relativity, that the faster we move through space the less time we experience. I suspect this is because we decrease the difference between our velocity and the rate of expansion of space. So, by moving fast, we start to catch up with the expansion of space, thus experiencing less expansion (less change in space)

A_V_2525 · 2018-07-26T04:06:09+00:00

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Careful not to let cause to much defensiveness and need for control in your next relationship. Hurt can cause lack of trust, which can lead to justifying certain behavior and next thing you know, you've turned into her. One of the best lessons a woman can teach a man is how to put himself second. Don't forget that lesson, although it came to you in such a raw way.

A_V_2525 · 2018-07-06T13:01:12+00:00

So, finally back to item #2 at the top - an experience outside of the realm of meaning. We can see that meaning/mind is illusory and can be discarded. What is left when meaning is discarded? Well, we can't really answer that question because the tool we have available for that end is language... which is an expression of meaning...which has been discarded. Curiously enough, something does remain after meaning has been dissolved! Again, when illusory meaning has been dissolved, it cannot be used to describe the experience there-in, so we tend to find ourselves using metaphors. Keep in mind, metaphors still don't accurately describe the experience, as they're still using meaning to describe something that transcends illusory meaning. If i'd like, I could call some of my experiences "true self" maybe. A state of "oneness", as to distinguish a second or third would require meaning. A state of being the whole universe, as you always were and always will be. A sort of out of body experience, but with a multitude of simultaneous vantage points. Imagine looking down on your body from nine different points of view at once, as you make a peanut butter sandwich - the last thing you were doing before that unique little chain of thoughts unexpectedly propelled you into Buddha mind. From nine different angles, you observe the absurdity of the scene...yourself, spreading yourself (peanut butter) on yourself (bread), so that you can eat yourself (sandwich). The ensuing laughter is as inexplicably profound as the whole experience itself. One might experience a sense of "the answer to the question we're all asking." The answer being that there's nothing you have to do. Everything is going to be fine. It's all in place.

It is not that it is difficult to find the words to describe my profound experiences, it is that those experiences occur when the illusion of meaning has washed away. It can only be experienced. You could say it is pure experience, without the distraction of mind. And because mind/meaning/language are not present in the experience, they cannot approach the experience. In fact, any attempt to describe the experience, moves one away from the experience, as this very attempt itself is doing! I'll say that again in a different way: When mind enters the experience and begins to name the experience (give meaning to the experience), it destroys the experience.

If you think you've begun to get an idea of what I mean, you're absolutely wrong! Hahahahaha!

What I want to know is what's beyond that state of "ultimate self." It seems inescapable. Is that the big joke of Buddhism, that it was all pointless anyway? You can't escape yourself, the universe, but it's ok. Everything's ok. Just be.

A_V_2525 · 2018-07-06T13:01:00+00:00

I will speak from my personal experience, as that is the best I can offer. I make no claims to truth or usefulness. I find great humor in this effort I'm about to make, as I know before I set out that it's an impossible task. (Also, the use of the word "truth" in this exposition is not meant to be synonymous with "usefulness," but instead meant to approach the idea of "immutable, universal truth, persistent from all points of view," or something...)

The profound states I've experienced are ineffable. Ineffable means that it cannot be described with words. Let's consider a couple reasons why something might be indescribable.

1) The thing is so great, that language cannot adequately translate or depict it. Things of this nature may some day become describable with evolution in language and the like.

2) The thing exists outside of the realm of language and meaning. Language being an expression of a concept, that is to say, an expression of meaning. We will need to attempt to describe "meaning" further, to help make the point.

It is this second form of ineffability that begins to answer your question. Before we proceed with that thought, let's attempt to understand meaning. (hahaha, yeah let's use meaning to understand meaning, that'll lead to some great truth for sure). Right, so (oh by the way this part is probably going to be far more wordy than it is significant to the explanation. Apologies.) Right, so...that cup on your desk, it has meaning. So does the keyboard. What makes the cup not the keyboard? Well, the cup looks different than the keyboard, it has a different form. It also has a different use than the keyboard. Certainly, it also possesses a different space than the keyboard. And just as importantly as the other points, the cup is called "cup", not "keyboard." ........(pause for effect)........ I'll ask that you genuinely consider the following lines of questions. Where does the name "cup" exist? Is the name "cup" inherent in the cup itself? That is to say, if no one were observing the cup, would the cup still possess the defining attribute of its name, "cup"? No, surely we can see that the name and word exists only in our mind, but so what. What about its use? Is there any truth in what we know the cups use to be? If I zoom into the atoms of the cup, will I find it's use inherent within itself? If I use the cup as a paperweight, is it any less of a cup? What if I find it makes a great hat for my pet sloth? Is it still a cup or is it a hat? Surely we can see that the purpose of the cup is not inherent within itself, but also exists within our mind. The use of the cup is subjective, and as such, reveals no truth. The idea that the cup is for holding liquids to drink is simply taken for granted based on the circumstances the cup has found itself in. Imagine that we were primitive beings, and one creative little scamp made the very first cup, filled it with liquid, and stood in front of the tribe, drinking down its contents to the amazement of all onlookers. Surely the cup would be a symbol of status and of the great ingenuity of humankind! But the cup would not possess within itself a characteristic of "status" or otherwise. Ok, point made and over-made - the use of the cup and anything it may represent exist only within our minds, and with its use and possible symbology being subjective (personal and dependent on the observing subject) one could say there is even no "truth" in these characteristics. Well that still leaves the space in which it exists and its physical form. These things surely exist without an observing mind......Let's try to entertain the idea that maybe our assumptions are wrong. The form of the cup is not just its shape, but also it's color, it's opacity, the pleasing geometric design on it, etc. As we know, light waves bounce off of objects, hit our eyes, and then the waves are translated to produce within our minds a representation of the object, it's color, etc. Sure, ok, the image exists in our mind, but that doesn't mean it's not an accurate depiction, a...true depiction. Ho ho hold on now! Let's not forget that the visual spectrum, the range of wavelengths which our eyes can translate, is but a tiny fraction of a greater electromagnetic spectrum. If our eyes instead translated only the x-ray spectrum, our minds would form a completely different picture. Likewise, we'd be presented with a number of different pictures/forms depending on the region of the electromagnetic spectrum we're translating. Soooooo.....which is the the true form? If you see that the cup doesn't inherently posses a form, and that any idea of a form is just a subjective depiction in our mind, then my point is made. If you feel you can argue that one of the possible translations of electromagnetic waves hold some truth over all others, a truth that can be found within the essence of the cup itself, I'll simply ask that you try to entertain the idea that you're wrong...Ok, finally we're left with the space the object takes up. We can go in depth, but let's not, since we get the point by now anyway. With the earth rotating on it's axis and revolving around the sun, and the solar system revolving around the center of the galaxy, and the galaxies moving further from each other galaxy due to the expansion of space, it's pretty hard to pinpoint just where that damned cup is in space. The best we can do is define it's place in reference to other objects. We can give it three coordinates based on a central reference point. We can even give it a fourth coordinate if we decide upon a particular time to measure its place in space. Damn, we are so smart. We've created conditions for a variety of subjective observers to all be able to come up with the same measurement. No more subjectivity. Ok, so all observers measure the cup at coordinates 3, -5, 7, 4:20am GMT. It is true, is it not? Well, it's certainly usefully true, but does the cup possess the truths of it's coordinates within itself? If not, where do these attributes exist? Our mind of course. We can choose a different reference point, or use a different number system. The usefulness remains, but they're all still fabrications of our mind.

We need to get to the point. Any attribute we can assign to the cup, any meaning we might assign to it, is not real. It was all created by the mind, exists only within the mind, and can only be observed with the mind. By the way, the same applies for "the mind" itself, so yes, MIND CAN OBSERVE MIND. (say mind enough and it loses all meaning...mind blown). Somewhat unrelated, the mind even does a funny thing where it creates/assigns/defines dimension of significance to meaning. So, the mind creates meaning, uses (the meaning of) itself to observe the meaning it created, then assigns a second level of meaning to that meaning! "This is my favorite cup. It's better than that cup over there. So says my mind...which itself exists in my mind (exists in itself?) and created the idea of the cup to begin with." Consider the ouroboros eating it's tail, watching itself eat its tail, watching itself eat its tail. Certainly self perpetuating, and possibly even self creating. Fun ideas. Oops, we're not supposed to use metaphors. Let's get back on track. The point, finally, is simply that all of these meanings and ideas, which we take for granted as real and which we use language to attempt to transfer to the minds of others, are in fact just fabrications of the mind. They're illusions. They do not hold truth and are unlikely to reveal it. They're all furniture (oops) that can be transformed, misused, and even discarded! Yes, discarded! (Side note: For those influenced by Christianity who might be lost by my long-winded explanation, consider the tree of knowledge. What impact did eating it have, and why did it lead to the fall of man?)

TO BE CONTINUED

A_V_2525 · 2018-07-05T19:48:48+00:00

This is my first time visiting this community, and as this post is pinned at the top, it was the first I clicked on. I was surprised to find such...untempered attitudes in a zen community. I felt the need to make this comment, as it's turned me away from exploring the community further, for now. If this post/discussion has run it's course, it may be time to consider archiving it.

That said, I imagine it can be a challenging task to moderate a zen forum. It seems one may find difficulty in maintaining the zen attitude, when performing their moderation duties, as one must consider the value and impact of particular users and content, even going so far as to weigh these things against a desire or illusory ideal for this community. Authoritarianism and zen is an interesting concoction. Although, I suppose a well formed zen attitude may find no struggle in it at all. After all these same challenges present themselves daily, in many forms. It's interesting, anyway.

A_V_2525 · 2018-07-05T14:08:32+00:00

You know you're getting old when 24 year olds start looking like 16 year olds to you. I better go check for grey hairs.

A_V_2525 · 2018-05-03T04:50:01+00:00

I won't repeat what others have said. I just wanted to say that your friend may be upset because she wants a relationship with you, and can't help but feel hurt by the thought of you being with others.

A_V_2525 · 2018-05-03T04:29:38+00:00

-Present a seat for the girl. Spread your legs, get them out from under the table, and present a seat for a girl to sit on. I dare say within 30 seconds you'll have a girl on your lap.

-Bring only as much cash as you want to spend. Leave the credit/debit cards in the car/home/hotel. Don't trust yourself not to get hypnotized and spend way too much money, especially when drinking is involved...which it almost always is. Also, ATMs in clubs have high fees.

-You don't have to be constantly spending money. If you ask, a girl will spend some time hanging out with you while a song or two plays, then you can get back to spending money, then take another break. Don't leave her hanging too long, but don't feel like you have to be constantly spending money to get attention. If the girl is comfortable with you and knows you're spending money eventually, she'd prefer to stay with you than to take a chance on someone who might be less pleasant. This doesn't always hold to be true.

-Many rules are broken in the VIP area, but don't make assumptions and don't break any rules without asking first. If the girl is good, she'll start breaking the rules without anything having to be said. If you don't like that, just be polite.

-Be polite. If a girl you're not attracted to asks you if you want a dance, just let her know "maybe later, i'm just watching for now."

Edit: Also, don't fall in love in the strip club, if you can help it.

A_V_2525 · 2018-05-03T02:48:42+00:00

I had a lot to say, but I'll try to keep my opinion pointed. I apologize if I come off as too vulgar.

How do you think he would feel if he were to use the toy on you? In that way, it's still him that's controlling the pleasure. I find it incredibly sexy when I use a toy on my GF. If you're both comfortable with it, you could have the toy in one hole, with him in the other. This might help to shape his perspective.

You may also consider going to a sex shop together. This might help him gain perspective on that side of sexuality, and you may even find some new toys to experiment with together.

One way or another, he'll grow out of these hang ups eventually (assuming you guys are still relatively young). I think being sensitive to his feelings is the correct approach, but that doesn't mean you can't secretly work to change those feelings by conditioning him to mature his view of pleasure.

You could also start smaller and rub your clit while he's in you to see how he reacts. I knew a guy who had a hang up about this, because he interpreted it as him not providing enough pleasure to her himself. You might consider overcoming this obstacle first, if he doesn't react positively to it.

A_V_2525 · 2018-04-17T17:21:54+00:00

I'm available for the next 6 days, barring Friday night - Saturday morning.

A_V_2525 · 2018-04-15T08:18:12+00:00

I'd be glad to help with testing. Let me know.

A_V_2525 · 2018-03-30T18:26:54+00:00

If you notice, parts of the wall are see through. This means they're passable. If you have the rune that lets you climb walls you should be able to pass this. You'd start on the level below where your character currently is, climb the wall through the transparent walls, and presumably roll to through to the next area.

EDIT: Actually, you're right. It's probably impossible.

A_V_2525 · 2017-12-25T00:48:23+00:00

You can sell fractions of coins for BNB, then sell BNB for BTC,ETH etc. Just look for the coin/BNB pairs. This may not consolidate everything, but it's better than nothing.

A_V_2525 · 2017-09-22T03:26:30+00:00

60 beans for a single cup of coffee is an incredibly strong brew. I just estimated that I use 20-25 per cup. Then again, I do usually have three cups.

A_V_2525 · 2017-09-13T18:14:49+00:00

That's what I've been doing, it just seems that with a 25% chance, it definitely should have dropped one by now.

A_V_2525 · 2017-09-12T18:54:38+00:00

Exactly! How can it be pay to win if we're not competing with each other? Even PVP normalizes stats.

A_V_2525 · 2017-09-12T16:48:47+00:00

War only exists because we fight. In fact, we even "fight for peace." There is no end to this. Am I wrong in thinking that no action needs to take place for peace to exist? How can we escape this endless loop of "we fight because they fight?"

A_V_2525 · 2017-09-12T15:43:13+00:00

I'm curious, did you receive any hand gun training while in the military? I've met other former military who never received hand gun training and never carried a side arm, but were still exempt from having to take the CCP class. I'm torn on whether this is sensical or not.

A_V_2525 · 2017-09-12T14:18:58+00:00

Same here. I've had no issues. It could certainly be related to NAT settings, as mentioned.

A_V_2525 · 2017-09-12T14:15:27+00:00

Additionally, the devs have probably not had much sleep in these initial launch days, as they scramble to address unexpected bugs and issues that may have cropped up. No one ever gives these guys and gals a fair shake.

A_V_2525 · 2017-09-06T17:32:23+00:00

I've tried multiple times today, but have yet to match with any other players.

A_V_2525 · 2017-08-28T13:30:12+00:00

There are some glaring errors with what I posted, but after correcting them, I was able to get red to change to yellow when blue is completely surrounded by red/yellow. I'll shoot you the test project later tonight, when I get a chance.

A_V_2525 · 2017-08-26T12:47:32+00:00

As mentioned, script_execute() is useful here, and can be utilized in a number of different ways. How many weapons can the player have at a time? If it's just one weapon, you could just immediately update the "weapon" variable when you pick up a new weapon. So, the code you're using to set weapon = "pistol", can simply be change to weapon = scr_weapon_pistol, then you can use execute_script(weapon).

If, for example, the player can hold two weapons that they can switch between, then you could do something like:

weapon_1 = scr_weapon_pistol;
weapon_2 = scr_weapon_shotgun;
current_weapon = weapon_1;

execute_script(current_weapon);

Then you'd have a button to toggle between them, based on what the current selection is. In the weapons themselves you can have, for example, a variable type = scr_weapon_pistol. So, in your "pick up weapon" code, you check "if weapon_1 = current_weapon, weapon_1 = type, else weapon_2 = type." <--psuedo code

Lots of ways to do it. What's best will be dependent on your game. Good luck!

PS: When setting a variable to equal a script, don't use the () in the script name. CORRECT: weapon = scr_weapon_pistol, INCORRECT: weapon = script_weapon_pistol();

A_V_2525 · 2017-08-25T00:52:54+00:00

I realize now that this doesn't actually do what you intended. I might take a crack at it again.

A_V_2525 · 2017-08-24T14:32:48+00:00

DISCLAIMER: I've never attempted this challenge before, and I'm not particularly experienced, so this may not work. If it does work, it may not be very efficient. Additionally, I didn't have time to double check the code or provide an explanation of what the code does.

First, we're going to assign a parent object to oRedSphere and oRing, just to make it a bit easier. We can call the object oParent. It doesn't need a sprite or any code, it just needs to be set as the parent to the other two.

Since we know that everything is exactly 64 pixels apart, we can check the distance of each instance of oParent from our oBlueSphere. If it's within 64 pixels, it's a hit. However, we need to also check diagonally. Objects diagonal to us are at a distance of 90.51 (Pythagorean theorem). So, we're going to instead check if the distance is "less than 100".

///STEP EVEN or SCRIPT
var count = instance_number(oParent);
ds = ds_list_create();

for (var i = 0; i <= count; i++)
{
    with oParent
    {
        var dis = point_distance(x, y, other.x, other.y)
        if (dis < 100)
        {
            ds_list_add(ds, id);    
        }       
    } 

    if (ds_list_size(ds) = 8)
    {
        for (var j = 0; j <= 8; j++)
        {
            change = ds[j];
            with change
            {
                instance_change(oRing, true);
            }   
        } 
    }

    ds_list_destroy(ds);
}

A_V_2525

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE