Do animals share in this 'more' and 'beyond'?

[thormas]

2 hours ago, romansh said:

Joseph Campbell ... a great theological thinker.

Joseph is not the only great theological thinker. And, we must say of Joseph what we say of all religious or theological thinkers, is that his is a belief statement - we do not know, there is no absolute certainty.  

So Joseph's depiction of the 'ultimate' is his belief.  I like Campbell and I like what he says here. I allow for the transcendence of duality and I allow for the dissolving of self* into the ground of being (actually such dissolving of self is referred to as selflessness in everyday life) and I have already said that theologians speak about the human experience of God as opposed to God in himself. Therefore, and of course, our images are metaphor - (a favorite book by John Hick is 'The Metaphor of God Incarnate'). So, our metaphors refer to ultimate mystery (an idea sacrosanct in theology).

So, I am in agreement with a good deal of Joseph's belief but then we diverge a bit (believing somewhat different things) or we simply give the same 'ultimate' different names. I  agree that there is 'one - the mystery of our being and the being of the world.'  And, that (the various and diverse human) images for god give way in the experience of the ultimate mystery, I also agree that there is nobody there (and also no there), no god, no you. Because you, me, god, there, nobody, anybody are objects and in uniting with mystery, there are no objects among other objects, there is one, the mystery. 

Where I differ, respectfully, very respectfully with Joseph is that for me, there is no god (understood here as human image of god, metaphor), there is only the Ultimate Mystery (from which we come, in which we are, to which we unite or re-connect). It is precisely Campbell's ultimate mystery that theism calls "God." Not a supreme person, not part of the universe, not Jesus Christ, not an object capable of being explored - rather, in Campbell's words: "the ultimate mystery of your own being, which is the mystery of the being of the world as well."

It is this mystery, that I refer to as "God."

The ultimate mystery is unnameable and unknowable (for Campbell who never names it and states that all our images/names are metaphor that never fully touch the reality). The mystery is not an object, not one of us, not part of the universe - the mystery is that to which all that is, tends (goal), the mystery of our being. So is the mystery prior to our being, is it the source of our being, of all being- especially since for Campbell, it is  our destiny/goal? 

Rom, you quoted Campbell: so I assume you agree in whole or part with him (or were you just throwing ontological)? If you are in agreement, then you are agreeing with his belief statement- is there evidence for the specifics of what he has said? Do you believe there is ultimate mystery which is our goal and source? If all dissolves in the ultimate mystery which is the source of the being of the world, it is also the source of the being of the universe- so is it the universe?

Anyway, it is this mystery, that I refer to as "God." So, with Joseph I am in good company.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by thormas

[thormas]

28 minutes ago, romansh said:

Sad.

no, a revelation :+}

[romansh]

If we call God ... what we don't know what we are talking about, then fine. You will have no argument from me.

I'll be a little skeptical about that one too. But to me it is not God; but whatever it is, it is dressed up in flowery language. A hypothesis that is not helpful in any meaningful way. 

Edited May 23, 2018 by romansh

[thormas]

No complains about Campbell though??  Is he just flowery language? Is his a hypothesis or belief? I mean you did quote him!

What hypothesis is not helpful? Campbell? 

[romansh]

While I like Campbell ... I don't by and large buy in. I have read a lot his stuff. Though he is more into the Eastern traditions .... which to my mind are more sensible.

But ... no I was referring to what you wrote.

[thormas]

No idea what hypothesis you mean

Eastern traditions, then you really do need to read Hart who quotes frequently from Hinduism. 

And yet you never answered the questions about Campbell.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by thormas

[romansh]

16 hours ago, thormas said:

No idea what hypothesis you mean

I can believe that. ?

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 4:20 PM, romansh said:

What are your beliefs based on Thormas?

Your turn to actually answer a question or two.

[thormas]

2 hours ago, romansh said:

Your turn to actually answer a question or two.

Not yet my friend, we still need to finish as I never got a real answer on what reality is for you.

In other words: If there is illusion (and I assume all in the universe, everything, is not as it seems) what is real (understood as it is)? 

Or is all illusion, all meaningless?

And, since you seem to be attracted to the eastern traditions and consider them sensible - do you accept them, any of them? Do they tie to you understanding of what is real?

Edited May 24, 2018 by thormas

[romansh]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Not yet my friend, we still need to finish as I never got a real answer on what reality is for you.

I can only see a pale reflection of reality. But I use that reflection to identify bits that are illusory.

What is real as opposed to reality? What do you mean by real as opposed to reality how are they different? Also there are two levels to these types of questions, I can't help but find. One is the everyday pragmatic aspects and then there is the more scientific or philosophic aspects. I try to make sure they match as much as possible in my everyday activities.

But pragmatically - reality is what makes sense. 

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Or is all illusion, all meaningless?

All is illusion ... As to meaningless ... perhaps. By meaning do you mean purpose? What's the purpose of atom's? What's the purpose of a brain? Here we confabulate. The concept of meaning exists ... but it is an illusion. We have to conjure up deities or give ourselves magical properties to have some divine meaning.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

consider them sensible

Not quite what I said ... again. Sometimes these Eastern traditions reflect the way I see the world eg dependent origination, sometimes they don't. eg free will, reincarnation. An example where it makes sense:

 

Now it is definitely your turn ... in this pragmatic way. 

4 hours ago, romansh said:

What are your beliefs based on Thormas?

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by romansh

[thormas]

45 minutes ago, romansh said:

I can only see a pale reflection of reality. But I use that reflection to identify bits that are illusory.

What is real as opposed to reality? What do you mean by real as opposed to reality how are they different? Also there are two levels to these types of questions, I can't help but find. One is the everyday pragmatic aspects and then there is the more scientific or philosophic aspects. I try to make sure they match as much as possible in my everyday activities.

But pragmatically - reality is what makes sense. 

All is illusion ... As to meaningless ... perhaps. By meaning do you mean purpose? What's the purpose of atom's? What's the purpose of a brain? Here we confabulate. The concept of meaning exists ... but it is an illusion. We have to conjure up deities or give ourselves magical properties to have some divine meaning.

Not quite what I said ... again. Sometimes these Eastern traditions reflect the way I see the world eg dependent origination, sometimes they don't. eg free will, reincarnation. An example where it makes sense:

 

Now it is definitely your turn ... in this pragmatic way. 

 

First, real and reality are the same in the questions posed.

So two levels, is fine: so what is reality in the pragmatic, everyday (and why)? What makes sense? So it is individual consideration/decision? It seems that humanity or parts of humanity share what makes sense. Why is that in your opinion?  And what is  your scientific/philosophical aspect - what is real/reality?

I don't really mean purpose if understood as utility. Meaning is more, 'what is this about' (not utilitarian) just a basic wondering or question. And, I would think that if one finds meaning, one has purpose - think of a something you love to do - many, find meaning in say writing, playing a musical instrument, painting  and they also, then say, they have found their purpose. So there is a similarity for meaning and purpose (if the latter is not utilitarian).

But if the concept of meaning is an illusion, and concepts 'present/represent' image and an 'image' can be a metaphor (remembering Campbell) or a symbol that points to 'something else'  -  (in your opinion) does the concept of meaning (you'll love this one) mean something? 

Sorry, you said more sensible but still making some sense, but fine.

But if you only 'see a pale reflection of reality,' what is the reality you 'see' that enables you to see that which is illusion?

If there is illusion (not as it seems) and reality (what is) is only seen as a pale reflection, do you have theories on what reality is? Simply, what is the reality that is seen only in/as a pale reflection? Can it ever be known or 'seen more clearly?'

[romansh]

Your turn to answer the question and then I will answer yours.

[thormas]

The video is 'heavy.' However I don't think I will ask the farmer to help build my house because if I turn to him and ask if a particular brick should be placed in a particular spot to start the construction- he won't lift a finger but he will say "maybe." In the meantime, my family freezes in the cold. Maybe!

[thormas]

3 minutes ago, romansh said:

Your turn to answer the question and then I will answer yours.

Nope not yet. Working on mine but need to have a more solid understanding of your before I can proceed. Don't worry, I'll get to it and it will be worth the wait..........Maybe :+}

[romansh]

37 minutes ago, thormas said:

The video is 'heavy.' However I don't think I will ask the farmer to help build my house because if I turn to him and ask if a particular brick should be placed in a particular spot to start the construction- he won't lift a finger but he will say "maybe." In the meantime, my family freezes in the cold. Maybe!

You plainly missed the point of the parable. Which is surprising. Try listening to what the farmer is saying maybe to. ?

42 minutes ago, thormas said:

And what is  your scientific/philosophical aspect - what is real/reality?

The universe.

42 minutes ago, thormas said:

does the concept of meaning (you'll love this one) mean something? 

Do you mean definition or purpose? Or unless do you mean (define) what's it all about?

42 minutes ago, thormas said:

I don't really mean purpose if understood as utility. Meaning is more, 'what is this about' (not utilitarian) just a basic wondering or question.

You do really seem to mean purpose. Beats me, if the answer at the macro level also at the sub meso level. I can't see planetary systems or bacteria as such having purpose or what's it all about. At the meso level we seem to concoct meaning and purpose, because we are caused to do so. It's one of those contingent thingies in both senses of the word. But if the zero energy universe hypothesis is true, then the answer to what is it all about? is nothing. Enjoy the illusionary  free lunch.

42 minutes ago, thormas said:

what is the reality you 'see' that enables you to see that which is illusion?

The reality is the universe and understanding of the relevant science and logic are what enables .

42 minutes ago, thormas said:

do you have theories on what reality is?

Yes it is the universe.

42 minutes ago, thormas said:

 Can it ever be known or 'seen more clearly?'

Seen more clearly ... perhaps with these developing scientific tools yes? Known no. Understood yes.

Edited May 24, 2018 by romansh

[thormas]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

You plainly missed the point of the parable. Which is surprising. Try listening to what the farmer is saying maybe to. 

 

Rom, humor! I did not miss it, I was playing. 

[thormas]

2 hours ago, romansh said:

The universe.

Ok, to summarize, the universe is what is real or, put another way, the universe is reality. Universe means the entirety of the universe (seen and unseen, physical and non-physical so to speak)?
And, if '0 energy' is true, then not only illusion but meaninglessness (let's leave meaninglessness for another day).

And, it is science and logic that allow or enable you to see that which is illusion. Is it correct that this seeing is not the physical act of seeing with your eyes but, understanding based on science and logic? Moving on, the tools enable us to see that what is, is, actually, not as it seems (i.e. illusion) - but, can the tools enable us to see/understand what is as it is, i.e. reality? And if so, what is reality; if science enables us to understand reality, then what is its understanding?

Ok, something is not clear:  you have said the universe is reality (i.e. what is real ); there is nothing else; and, also, that all is illusion. If all, i.e.,everything, is illusion, how is the universe real? It seems that if the universe is all - and all is illusion -  then reality or the universe is not as it seems -  therefore reality is illusion: nothing is as it seems, nothing is as it is (real). 

Finally, it (reality) can be seen more clearly - perhaps with developing scientific tools. However, reality can not be known but it can be understood. Ok, but if all is illusion then the tools of science (and logic) are illusion as are the object of science's inquiry. How can illusion look at illusion and see/understand reality?

 

[romansh]

21 hours ago, thormas said:

Ok, to summarize, the universe is what is real or, put another way, the universe is reality. Universe means the entirety of the universe (seen and unseen, physical and non-physical so to speak)?

I never said non-physical ... in a sense things like concepts are physical or at least we always find them written large in the physical.

21 hours ago, thormas said:

And, if '0 energy' is true, then not only illusion but meaninglessness (let's leave meaninglessness for another day).

I never quite said this either. Meaning I suspect will too be more illusion. But yes let leave it aside for the moment.

21 hours ago, thormas said:

And, it is science and logic that allow or enable you to see that which is illusion. Is it correct that this seeing is not the physical act of seeing with your eyes but, understanding based on science and logic? Moving on, the tools enable us to see that what is, is, actually, not as it seems (i.e. illusion) - but, can the tools enable us to see/understand what is as it is, i.e. reality? And if so, what is reality; if science enables us to understand reality, then what is its understanding?

Not with total accuracy but it guides us. Seeing includes our senses, telescopes and the like. Logic, science and the like are what enables understanding. What is understanding? It is ultimately like a predictive capability.  We can predict how the universe will unfold, and again this is to varying degrees of accuracy. What is science's understanding ... not sure I understand the question.

21 hours ago, thormas said:

Ok, something is not clear:  you have said the universe is reality (i.e. what is real ); there is nothing else; and, also, that all is illusion. If all, i.e.,everything, is illusion, how is the universe real? It seems that if the universe is all - and all is illusion -  then reality or the universe is not as it seems -  therefore reality is illusion: nothing is as it seems, nothing is as it is (real). 

Something can be real and not be as it seems. It is statements like this that lead me to think you seem to think of illusion as closer to something unmentionable. Take my kitchen chair it is red. Yet every bit of science tells me that the chair is not physically red but the redness is a construction of my brain. Reality is not as it seems. Our senses are limited.

21 hours ago, thormas said:

Finally, it (reality) can be seen more clearly - perhaps with developing scientific tools. However, reality can not be known but it can be understood. Ok, but if all is illusion then the tools of science (and logic) are illusion as are the object of science's inquiry. How can illusion look at illusion and see/understand reality?

Imperfectly ... and hence my agnosticism. But I am also forced to move forward and I seem to do it on a basis of what can be made sense of.

[thormas]

48 minutes ago, romansh said:

So the universe, everything, is physical. There is nothing else?

Not with total accuracy but it guides us. Seeing includes our senses, telescopes and the like. Logic, science and the like are what enables understanding. What is understanding? It is ultimately like a predictive capability.  We can predict how the universe will unfold, and again this is to varying degrees of accuracy. What is science's understanding ... not sure I understand the question.

Here's where it goes off the track for me (at least insofar as trying to get your understanding):

- seeing is the actual act of seeing and it is aided by the tools of science

- given what we observe, we can predict (for example, the unfolding of the universe). 

if I have followed you, then here is the delimna: if everything is illusion and what we are seeing/observing is illusion, then it follows that our predictions about what we are observing, for example the unfolding of the universe, are about what is (or will be) illusion when it unfolds. So what we are understanding is illusion (not what is but what is always not as it seems) but we are not seeing or understanding what is real (what is what it is). 

I was asking is what does science say is real. And, I think the answer is the universe it observes and makes prediction about - but while it was said, above, that the universe is real it was also said all is illusion?? So I still wonder, what is real for science? Any insights from Einstein, Hawking or others?

Hold it, we have lift off, well maybe. (not sure what unmentionable you mean but leaving that aside for now).  So you just said "Something can be real and not be as it seems." Ok, we have the example of the chair, so I get that that redness is a construct of the brain, so the color red is illusion, not as it seems/appears) but is the chair real? In other words are the chair, the floor, the surrounding room, the house, the block to the town, country, etc and the universe, real or is that all a construct  (therefore illusion) also? Is 'all' that is physical a construct? And if so, (and the only way I can say this is) what is the reality 'behind' the constructs? Anything from science, any theories or many theories?

Ok, so we might be able to understand what is real Imperfectly  but it seems equally possible that we might not understand at all, even imperfectly. I mean, how doe we actually know? 

And, to say, " I am also forced to move forward and I seem to do it on a basis of what can be made sense of" seems to be a statement of trust or faith (and I am not suggesting a deity); It seems to imply that there is something to be understood more perfectly (still an imperfect understanding but understanding nonetheless).

Again, I am not directing you to a deity but if all is a construct (and therefore, illusion), why are we and all else (not only part of it but) able to construct something from what we 'see?' And, sorry, but I am led, logically, to ask, how is it that there is 'something' that in our interaction, we are able to 'build a universe from?

 

 

 

[romansh]

14 hours ago, thormas said:

if everything is illusion and what we are seeing/observing is illusion, then it follows that our predictions about what we are observing, for example the unfolding of the universe, are about what is (or will be) illusion when it unfolds. So what we are understanding is illusion (not what is but what is always not as it seems) but we are not seeing or understanding what is real (what is what it is). 

No, everything is not an illusion ... our perception of everything is not as it seems. But we can understand the universe to varying degrees of accuracy. So saying everything is an illusion is perhaps a careless short hand. 

14 hours ago, thormas said:

I was asking is what does science say is real. And, I think the answer is the universe it observes and makes prediction about - but while it was said, above, that the universe is real it was also said all is illusion?? So I still wonder, what is real for science? Any insights from Einstein, Hawking or others?

Einstein ... gave us relativity and the peculiar behaviours of time. Hawking the peculiar behaviour of nothing. Existence I assume is real. It's our perception of it that is problematic. When we go to a magic show, the attractive assistant and disappearing tiger are 'real'. Our perception of them has been fooled.

14 hours ago, thormas said:

but is the chair real?

You confound not being real and not being as it seems. Apparently continually ... Not believing in things that are real and believing in unreal things could be considered as delusional (unmentionable). Science gives descriptions of what is observed. It also tell us what is not so. But to be fair scientists sometimes go further. What is behind reality, four fundamental forces that we have observed and matter. Do we need more?

14 hours ago, thormas said:

And, to say, " I am also forced to move forward and I seem to do it on a basis of what can be made sense of" seems to be a statement of trust or faith (and I am not suggesting a deity); It seems to imply that there is something to be understood more perfectly (still an imperfect understanding but understanding nonetheless).

It may seem like faith ... but not by my definition. Here's my picture of understanding it is like a balloon. The stuff inside we 'know or understand' Outside of the balloon is stuff yet to be learnt. The surface of the balloon is what we understand that we don't understand. As the balloon inflates our lack of understanding also increases. Job security for scientists.

14 hours ago, thormas said:

Again, I am not directing you to a deity but if all is a construct (and therefore, illusion), why are we and all else (not only part of it but) able to construct something from what we 'see?' And, sorry, but I am led, logically, to ask, how is it that there is 'something' that in our interaction, we are able to 'build a universe from?

Are you asking how we do this constructing or what is the purpose. We are not building a universe. The how is ultimately evolution. And for me the mystery is how come molecules replicate. We can see they do. As Sagan said ... We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.   Disagree with the word know but I get his drift.

 

I really wish you could get the hang of the quote function.

Edited May 26, 2018 by romansh

[thormas]

5 hours ago, romansh said:

No, everything is not an illusion ... our perception of everything is not as it seems. But we can understand the universe to varying degrees of accuracy. So saying everything is an illusion is perhaps a careless short hand. 

Ok, but was just referring back to what you said above. However, if our perception of everything is not as it seems how can we understand with any degree of accuracy - because whatever we are perceiving, which is everything, is illusion - not as it seems? Which is not accurate ever because if all is illusion, then our brain is only capable of seeing illusion and therefore accuracy too is an illusion" it is only how it seems to us! 

Einstein ... gave us relativity and the peculiar behaviours of time. Hawking the peculiar behaviour of nothing. Existence I assume is real. It's our perception of it that is problematic. When we go to a magic show, the attractive assistant and disappearing tiger are 'real'. Our perception of them has been fooled.

Ok, so existence is real, and the entirety of existence is the universe, correct? At another time, I will have to explore how Hawkings 'gave us' the behavior, peculiar or not, of nothing.

You confound not being real and not being as it seems. Apparently continually ... Not believing in things that are real and believing in unreal things could be considered as delusional (unmentionable). Science gives descriptions of what is observed. It also tell us what is not so. But to be fair scientists sometimes go further. What is behind reality, four fundamental forces that we have observed and matter. Do we need more?

No, not really. I have been trying to follow you and you have said that all is not as it seems, so Ihave been asking, what then. is as it is, i.e. real. Or better, how do we know what is real if, as above, our perception of everything is illusion?

It may seem like faith ... but not by my definition.

Ok, but we indeed, it does seem like faith.

Here's my picture of understanding it is like a balloon. The stuff inside we 'know or understand' Outside of the balloon is stuff yet to be learnt. The surface of the balloon is what we understand that we don't understand. As the balloon inflates our lack of understanding also increases. Job security for scientists.

Yeah, but inside or our - our perception of it all is that it is illusion, it is not as it seems to us - so what is it, really? And, the answer is, we don't know. 

Are you asking how we do this constructing or what is the purpose. We are not building a universe. The how is ultimately evolution. And for me the mystery is how come molecules replicate. We can see they do. As Sagan said ... We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.   Disagree with the word know but I get his drift.

I am simply asking if, according to you, all is a construct (example, redness is a construct of our brain), then it seems everything is a construct of our brain because all is not as it seems. And it seems animal brains also construct or build a reality that they, like we, interact in and with. So what IS? There must be something that is real but our brains only see what it constructs. Again, redness a construct - is the chair also a construct?

Your mystery is how molecules replicate but the additional or the greater mystery is why there are molecules, in the first place, why is there anything? Is there an answer to this mystery from your perspective?

I really wish you could get the hang of the quote function. Say what now?

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by thormas

[JosephM]

Thormas,

Your posts need to be quote formatted more like Rom's. It is difficult for the reader to determine who said what.

Perhaps one of these links will help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

https://permies.com/t/47106/post-quotes-illustrated-guide

https://www.peakprosperity.com/faq/forum-quotes

Joseph

[romansh]

18 hours ago, thormas said:

how can we understand with any degree of accuracy - because whatever we are perceiving, which is everything, is illusion - not as it seems?

Carefully - by using different methods of perception, repeating, seeing if predictions corroborate the model. Saying something is not accurate is in itself not accurate. Could there be shades of accuracy.  Remember ... our perceptions are reflections of the universe. When you look in a mirror the reflection is backwards left to right. 

Yes as far as I can tell the universe is real. But someone could go all solipsistic on us and claim some form of idealism on us.

18 hours ago, thormas said:

No, not really. I have been trying to follow you and you have said that all is not as it seems, so I have been asking, what then. is as it is, i.e. real. Or better, how do we know what is real if, as above, our perception of everything is illusion?

Here you seem to confound again ... everything is real. Even our illusions are real. Everything is as it is. We don't 'know'. How did we work out my kitchen chair is not actually red? 

18 hours ago, thormas said:

And, the answer is, we don't know. 

And again we go round in circles - agnosticism. But we can tentatively put forward models, hypotheses, theories of the universe on a pedestal and take a piñata bat to them. This is the essence of the process of science.

18 hours ago, thormas said:

So what IS? There must be something that is real but our brains only see what it constructs. Again, redness a construct - is the chair also a construct?

The universe is ... as far as I can tell. The chair by definition is a construct ... I could go all Matrix on you ... there is no spoon. The spoon and chair are not made up spoon and chair parts. They are atoms arranged in a particular way as are trees and cats. Sure chairs and spoons have been shaped by human kind, which in turn have been shaped by evolution. And evolution is product of the universe. No intention [you seem to be pointing to intent] here as far as we can tell. And when we talk of our own intentions, this is a confabulation. And at this point the discussion will devolve into consciousness.

18 hours ago, thormas said:

Your mystery is how molecules replicate but the additional or the greater mystery is why there are molecules, in the first place, why is there anything? Is there an answer to this mystery from your perspective? 

Yes, nature abhors a vacuum. The Universe from Nothing youtube would be one place to start, Hawking and Mlodinow's The Grand Design gives us an insight how a universe might come into existence. But end of the day this is irrelevant to the immediate problem. Well theists argue what is the first cause for this universe ... the answer obviously being God. Physicalists argue the nothing is the first cause. Nothing [as in vacuum] is unstable. Interestingly we can measure properties of nothing eg the Casimir effect and compare them to theoretical predictions. 

But these are all hypotheses and should be taken with a pinch of salt. Especially further back we go in the causal chain.

Edited May 27, 2018 by romansh

[romansh]

46 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Thormas,

Your posts need to be quote formatted more like Rom's. It is difficult for the reader to determine who said what.

Perhaps one of these links will help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

https://permies.com/t/47106/post-quotes-illustrated-guide

https://www.peakprosperity.com/faq/forum-quotes

Joseph

Also to add. At least on my computer when I highlight a bit of text ... I get a black quote box saying quote selection. And clicking on that, easily allows quoting. Though at times it can be a little messy, but most of the time is fine.

Edited May 27, 2018 by romansh

[thormas]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Thormas,

Your posts need to be quote formatted more like Rom's. It is difficult for the reader to determine who said what.

Joseph,

If you mean the quote box that Rom refers to, I don't really like it: it breaks down every sentence and we never, in my opinion, get to the big idea. I have used my version (typically my response is set off by underlining or italics) and a couple times I have just responded in a paragraph or two. Perhaps I will give it a try but it makes the response too piecemeal for me. I prefer a full response and summarizing rather than the back and forth over an individual sentence or two. But that's is my style.

But thanks for the 'tutorial.' 

[romansh]

5 minutes ago, thormas said:

I don't really like it:

You can break down the key bit ... or

6 minutes ago, thormas said:

If you mean the quote box that Rom refers to, I don't really like it: it breaks down every sentence and we never, in my opinion, get to the big idea. I have used my version (typically my response is set off by underlining or italics) and a couple times I have just responded in a paragraph or two. Perhaps I will give it a try but it makes the response too piecemeal for me. I prefer a full response and summarizing rather than the back and forth over an individual sentence or two. But that's is my style.

or the whole lot.

Your method that you like is awkward for the reader.