|
Post by enigma on Jan 20, 2011 3:21:23 GMT -5
Yeah, the difficulty with expressing what 'we' are is that we aren't something that can be seen or an experience that leaves tracks in the mind for later recall. What is being pointed to is a conspicuous absence about which nothing at all can be said. If it could, it would be yet another appearance appearing to that which is. The problem is not that something is not seen or known, but that far too much is seen and known and mistaken for reality. What does it take to strip it down to it's essence and stop imagining? This is the real question.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 20, 2011 8:40:54 GMT -5
Okay, I don't want to split semantic hairs, but I say what we are cannot be experienced/seen. disagree it can be seen and what is seen can never be unseen the problem is always it can never be expressed. IMO the absolute has no problem knowing it is just as you or I have no problem knowing it is. Correct no tracks left in the mind however true seeing is not with the mind to begin with . So just because it cannot be expressed does not mean it cannot be seen. It very well can be semantic hair splitting when you try to use words to speak about the non speakable. Michael
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 20, 2011 9:16:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 20, 2011 23:03:47 GMT -5
Yeah, the difficulty with expressing what 'we' are is that we aren't something that can be seen or an experience that leaves tracks in the mind for later recall. So what would be the stuff that is seen or experienced? The problem is not that something is not seen or known, but that far too much is seen and known and mistaken for reality. What does it take to strip it down to it's essence and stop imagining? This is the real question. It takes patience!
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 20, 2011 23:05:42 GMT -5
It very well can be semantic hair splitting when you try to use words to speak about the non speakable Michael What's the non-speakable doing now?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 20, 2011 23:16:18 GMT -5
Right now its turning off the computer and going to bed with a big smile on its face. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 20, 2011 23:28:43 GMT -5
It very well can be semantic hair splitting when you try to use words to speak about the non speakable Michael What's the non-speakable doing now?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 21, 2011 1:23:51 GMT -5
"So what would be the stuff that is seen or experienced?"
It's just....you know.....stuff. Nobody can know anything about stuff. There's no absolute reference for stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 21, 2011 9:21:23 GMT -5
Must give the 'non-speakable' what belongs to the 'non-speakable.'
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 21, 2011 10:01:27 GMT -5
Good one Porto
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 21, 2011 15:08:10 GMT -5
Nobody can know anything about stuff. There's no absolute reference for stuff. Then I guess relative reference is the only option. One more pointer to 'the only one.'
|
|