Post by laughter on Dec 13, 2012 19:06:00 GMT -5
What you don't seem to realize or even to understand is that what the concept of non-duality points toward is that any and every word, thought or concept is inherently flawed, untrue, and a product of imagination.
When I talk about ideas, I'm generally careful to say they are not ultimately true because to say they are untrue denotes a misconception. To say an imagined conceptualization is untrue (and all concepts are imagined), is to assign something that is true. The only way you would know that a thought is untrue, is if there are other thoughts that are true. Otherwise the statement has no meaning at all.
As such, we cannot make the statement that all words (or concepts or ideas or thoughts) are untrue. The statement is based on a mis-conceptualization, given that this idea is only valid within a given context. (i.e. it's true that you posted here, and it is not untrue.)
Likewise, thoughts and concepts born of imagination are not inherently flawed, they are simply imagined. They possess their own kind of innocence in that no challenge, also born of imagination, can declare an inherent flaw.
Hey, well, you know the old folksy statement … “in for a penny, in for a pound”?. If our conversation had no broader context outside of that thread I might leave it there, but it does, so apparently out of respect, I won’t.
Context, while sometimes seemingly arbitrary, is always necessary in the evaluation of words, and the context that was around that quote disclaims any assignment of truth to it by me, be that relative or absolute:
That was prelude. I was telegraphing that what you quoted was a product of my imagination.
That was postscript. Now you demonstrated to me the other day the exception that collapses the rule of the recursive self-negating statement: “to be aware of being aware”, but I’m apparently not able to channel Niz like you are. <digression> Don’t know if that demonstration was your intention as while I know that you either do understand via intellect or could understand via intellect how the √-1 applies to this if you wanted to, my recollection when I ran it by you a few years back was that you just weren’t interested in it </digression>.
Bottom line of that postscript was that the pattern of self-negating recursion applies to the quoted statement, so that it is its own disclaimer. Now this seems to trigger the “otherwise” clause of your first sentence.
On that I gently and respectfully disagree with you, and I have a suspicion that ferreting out the root of the disagreement would just be a repetition of a conversation we had late last spring about paradox.
Yes, in just watching a thought, letting it dissolve and fade away, there is no knowing. Not only no need for truth, but truth and falsity both seem to the mind, when considered by reason, to imagine themselves into a hindrance.
Here’s the Niz quote of the day (read first literally this morning) that I think is just dead on to my current avenue of exploration here outside this thread:
----
seeker: If I start the practice of dismissing everything as a dream, where will it lead me?
Niz: Wherever it leads you, it will be a dream. The very idea of going beyond the dream is illusory. Why go anywhere? Just realize that you are dreaming a dream you call the world, and stop looking for ways out. The dream is not your problem. Your problem is that you like one part of your dream and not another. Love all or none of it, and stop complaining. When you have seen the dream as a dream, you have done all that needs to be done.
----
The rational machine knows that the reason for the apparent synchronicity is a combination of the volume of so many words all tightly wound around a single coherent message coupled with the current focus on particular fragments of that message, and at the same time the machine is on notice of the nature of that conclusion.
