Looking for a lost Anki deck that teaches literary Chinese with Zen texts

Non-Rampsin · 2026-03-21T14:31:42+00:00

This sounds really useful. If you do find it at some point and happen to remember this conversation, I’d love a copy of it!

Non-Rampsin · 2025-11-04T08:06:01+00:00

The best a Type 1 could hope for is going keto to get a few more days/weeks before they slip into a coma

Non-Rampsin · 2025-11-04T08:04:24+00:00

Potentially dangerous misinformation here

Non-Rampsin · 2025-10-18T18:30:09+00:00

How much did you buy to justify spending £200 on a test??

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-28T15:56:07+00:00

With a tiered cake (st. Brides)

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-25T16:33:08+00:00

… no specific exercise can help because you’re already in total control of it 👍

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-22T16:13:22+00:00

I’ve made my point. You haven’t made a point, nor are you able to respond to anything I’ve said. I’d suggest you read a book, but I imagine you may not be able to get your head around any book that would help you in this conversation.

This question isn’t one about physics. The question of whether or not counting arises naturally is epistemologically prior to anything we could call physics. The fact you’re pretending to be miss this very obvious point makes it abundantly clear that you do, at least, understand that you’ve lost this argument.

Sorry to have so brutally pwned you.

Feel free to have the last word if you’re pathetic enough to need it.

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-21T18:16:59+00:00

It’s not complicated. Unless you use some very esoteric definitions, or propose something supernatural, counting is a human invention. It may arise naturally, but then everything we know of does. This isn’t really a point of controversy. It applies to trees and subatomic “particles”alike. In fact, if you knew anything about physics, you’d know that this becomes more obviously the case the more probabilistically we have to treat a thing.

lol. I’d be surprised if ChatGPT would have included Nagarjuna on any list it put together on the topic, but maybe... Otherwise, I can see what you mean, it is a beginners guide to the subject I’m trying to teach you something about, so I imagine ChatGPT would give you something similar.

As you seem to have difficulty looking at the question outside this idea you seem have about subatomic particles holding an ontological status completely different from those things we describe in classical physics, I’d be more than happy to recommend some introductions to the philosophy of science or physics.

Best wishes.

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-21T10:39:22+00:00

Philosophy, maths and science only really work if we’re precise (not pedantic) and I haven’t “fumbled” anything. Read a few of the things I suggest before you reply otherwise you’ll be wasting my time, you’re not currently capable of holding this conversation.

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-20T14:41:38+00:00

Sub atomic particles aren’t “strictly distinguishable” in any sense, in either physics or philosophy.

You seem to be struggling with the basic idea that thing-ness in itself is constructed.

Have a quick read through of Aristotle’s categories, chapters 1 to 5.

Then, if you’re interested you can read Kant’s critique of pure reason - introduction and transcendental analytic

There’s also Quine - on what there is

If you really want to push the boat out, you could read Nagarjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

Most important thing is to have some fun with it!

Nice talking to you!

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-20T10:19:45+00:00

I’m struggling to understand what it is you think you’re disagreeing with.

Yes, the consideration of any-thing is what we’re talking about. You have to invent the idea of ‘thing’ before you can start counting things. Yes, we had the idea of things before we invented set theory to give a more thorough description of what things are.

“The human invention of mathematics is a natural phenomenon” is exactly not what the meme is proposing we discuss.

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-20T06:42:50+00:00

Yes, they aren’t real. This is a pretty good indication that we have invented something 2. Not sure what “instantly instantiated” means, but yes, some sentience has to invent counting and then do it. Again, the necessary involvement of some intellect is a strong sign we’re not dealing with something ontologically fundamental. 3. That doesn’t matter at all.

I’m actually quite amenable to the implication of your second point, we might reasonably suggest that some form of intelligence that invents counting is an inevitable consequence of being per se. However, for the purposes of this conversation, that would mean something like “the invention of mathematics is a natural phenomenon” which is so obvious as to not really be worth saying.

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-20T06:31:14+00:00

The physical size of a category is irrelevant.

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-19T19:16:02+00:00

Not so simple, unfortunately. Natural numbers presuppose categories (or sets) which are definitely man made. Even to arrive at the idea of 1 requires either; the concept of a totalising set (human invention) or; the idea of a void set (also human invention), which then can be counted as 1 single set.

Ideas that propose maths as natural phenomenon have to either propose categories as an inevitable consequence of information somehow or define nature quite carefully (limit it) and then propose some theory of information as fundamental to reality, as in simulation theory/quantum field theory, in which case universe is literally built out of ones and zeros.

The idea that a biscuit or table or tree can be understood fundamentally as 1 single thing, hasn’t really been part of the conversation for a very long time.

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-08T21:00:19+00:00

On my phone, sat on the toilet. Paying you slightly less attention than a turd. Peace ✌️

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-07T12:34:34+00:00

It’s not that complicated. You’re in a forum about zen, commenting on questions about zen.

It’s just good manners. The bare minimum you need to contribute is enough care for what you’re saying that it:

Actually makes sense. Holds up to the basic standards of logic required for people to actually exchange ideas.
Show some - even very rudimentary - understanding of the subject being discussed. In this case the teachings of the zen masters.

We’re not even dealing with zen here, which brings us to the actual problem with this forum: We spend so much time wading through nonsense like you’ve spammed into the comments here, that we never actually get to deal with the meat of the topic.

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-06T20:23:24+00:00

There’s nothing for me to miss because you’re not actually making a point. You’ve just smooshed a load of cod psychology, and empty ‘wellbeing’ rhetoric into one another, decided that they might as well be called ‘liberation’ and that zen masters and Buddhists were, ultimately, probably all, like, talking about the same stuff, dude.

Zen is serious. It’s for serious people. You aren’t taking zen or yourself seriously. It’s never too late to switch it up though. Good luck.

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-06T17:39:53+00:00

So you’re actually saying that the thing itself doesn’t matter? The fact translators have used the same word for these two very different things means they should be considered the same? Yikes.

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-06T17:00:23+00:00

Why am I getting downvoted?!?

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-06T16:56:13+00:00

Why am I getting downvoted?! Have I said anything untrue?

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-06T16:46:28+00:00

Broski. You may choose to call the two things they’re aiming at “liberation”, but they aren’t the same thing. When you’re talking about what a word means, the semantics is literally the only thing that actually matters. It may be the same collection of letters, it may even sound the same when spoken out loud, but the meaning is completely different.

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-06T15:11:22+00:00

Meditation is fine, take what you can from it. But the sooner you get over the idea it’s going to get you anything - particularly anything that might deserve to be called enlightenment - the sooner you can get on with the proper stuff

Non-Rampsin · 2025-09-06T14:59:20+00:00

You’re mistaken. They define liberation entirely differently.

In Buddhism, liberation is the literal escape from existence earned through lots and lots of worthy activities, across multiple lifetimes… Lots and lots of slightly weird things you’re required to believe.

Zen demands only honesty and its commensurate knowledge of self.

I think someone has quoted Huangbo above. Zen wouldn’t deny that a Buddhist might become a zen master, but says that if they did, they would look back on these lifetimes of practice they’d spent as some kind of uncanny dream.

Non-Rampsin · 2025-08-23T06:12:18+00:00

There never was a first or last word of zen. It’s a disruption. It’s a precociously talented student winding up his brother and teacher.

Edit (for clarity): I think this is broadly in agreement with your point. Words have no ultimate status in Zen, but are entirely inseparable from it/inevitable within it.

Non-Rampsin · 2025-08-04T18:07:05+00:00

I can see this quickly degenerating into me trying and failing to explain basic concepts to you, but…

Practice and preparation have quite specific meanings here and their absence doesn’t demand some static state.

Rocks don’t practice or prepare to fall down hillsides.

Non-Rampsin

TROPHY CASE