Come now Angelus,I'll see your 'straw man' and raise you a weasel wording/cherry picking,or two. [eg]
none of this has any reality in an ontological sense and is merely a chemical event in the brain
Chemical reactions don't exist in reality??? Holy shit, I need to reevaluate (see your straw man?)
The missing word from your cherry picked definition of what Asurendra said is highlighted in the quote above, the one word that gives context and direction to Asurendra's criticism.
ONTOLOGICAL.
Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. In the broadest sense, ontologists investigate what makes a human human, relying on institutional, social, and technical conventions representing a nexus of intellectual activities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
In computer science and information science, an ontology formally represents knowledge as a set of concepts within a domain, using a shared vocabulary to denote the types, properties and interrelationships of those concepts.[1][2]
Ontologies are the structural frameworks for organizing information and are used in artificial intelligence, the Semantic Web, systems engineering, software engineering, biomedical informatics, library science, enterprise bookmarking, and information architecture as a form of knowledge representation about the world or some part of it. The creation of domain ontologies is also fundamental to the definition and use of an enterprise architecture framework.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_% ... science%29
If you two want to go round in circles arguing on which of you is correct, may I suggest a new topic to do so,as this fruitless picking stifles conversation somewhat and drags us way off the original topic material.
I have worked with 'entities' both as a believer and as a sceptic,yet had interesting and successful results both ways as I can hold opposing ideas in my head and entertain more than one viewpoint simultaneously without my head exploding. Maybe you'd be surprised,perhaps, at how many of us can do this, as it's not actually that difficult a concept for the human mind once it escapes a dualistic mindset. [thumbup]
Either/Or dichotomy,hmm...
Edited to add,for balance: I'm aware that Asurendra 'started it' this time with this...
it should be noted that when dealing with the Peacock Angle/DawingSun777 school of thought none of this has any reality in an ontological sense and is merely a chemical event in the brain so such standards as Levi's dictum are really mute. But, so is everything else then, too.
But,both of you should try to ignore each other more,if you can't get past this.Pesronalities clash sometimes,fact of life,beliefs diverge,practices differ.
You both have a lot to offer here and I hope we can now have a decent discussion,this has potential for a decent topic and I 'm going to step out of my comfort zone a little with it now.
A shout out to Ramscha too,by the way,that was an excellent post and I enjoyed reading about your experience greatly.So much so, that you've helped me get the stick outta my arse and decide to join in properly. [grin] [pray]
Question: For the purposes of this topic,how are we defining entity?
I may be willing to discuss one or two as I intend to post about an experience in another topic which is entity related,but I'm not producing a list nor will I be justifying anything to anyone.
And turning this around again,what about you PeacockAngel,will you be sharing here too,as manonthepath also asked earlier?
I'd like to hear more about how you've interacted with Melek Taus,for instance,so tradseies?
I'll share if you do.