Sorry man, certainty
is confusion, confusion is certainty.
BTW, to call something a dream is not to dismiss it.
Ah, well here you open an exit from the Architects room which I’m going to take.
I’m not taking it out of a lack of courage, but because we’ve had this conversation before.
More than two times in fact, and each time it went a different way.
First, my exit, which is, in turn, based on my entry into the room:
The rumor around here is that paradoxes are imaginary.
That is, we imagine/create/manifest a dreamer and a dream.
So Porto said two things, and I responded to the first, and yes, I rather rudely accused the kind and gentle member of “dismissing” paradox as a dream based on the sub-statement that “paradoxes are imaginary”.
Now if you are saying that to call something a dream is not to dismiss it as such, then ok, based on that, I’ll agree with your first sentence to me:
I didn't hear Porto dismiss anything, just saying that they are one and the same.
Now as far as your second sentence to me goes:
The distinction is imagined.
(** holds up two fingers, shakes head, and then runs for the exit **)
It’s a slim opening for an exit, I know. That’s what the stunt guys are for.
---
Now before I reference the past iterations of this conversation I’m going to give lie to my last to topo’, but that is unfortunately necessary as I’ve alluded to this several times already:
I thought this was an opportunity to, as Enigma puts it, walk off the battlefield. You're not just the one, you're the sixth anomaly, a product of an equation or a balance between forces. Do you keep the battle going? Or stop fighting? Neo kept the battle going.
I thought the movies failed to deliver on the message of "waking up" when Neo never seriously explored the possibility/likelihood that he "woke up" into a fail-safe program. Since he rejected the first story for not having enough excitement and drama in it, he was given a second story where he "wakes up" from the first to be a hero and saviour of all the people trapped in the first story. He couldn't buy into the first story but he bought the second story hook line and sinker because it pandered to his ego, his need to be important. 
… <TMT> unfortunately, we can’t break the metaphor by simply positing that the matrix is a self-organizing network and thereby factor out the Architect as of course the Architect could easily simply be a creation of that network not embodied in the initial transient but present in the steady state </TMT>)The last time that we had this conversation … I did exactly what topo’ suggested Neo should do .. I walked off the stage, entered silence, didn’t respond .. I contentedly sipped my GI cupa' Joe and blessedly STFU, with only one, mostly-non-verbal, cry out from the cross:
Right, well you and I have very different ideas about what it means to resolve a paradox but since we both apparently agree on the ultimate nature of ideas there's no more to say on that. 
Now this wasn’t because I agreed with you, then or now, but it was because I recognized that the conversation had become pointless.
This is, as an aside, the abstract pattern for the conversation that you and Andrew keep coming back to when you start talking about his confusion and he starts talking about your certainty.
At the time, I thought about launching into a retort based on √-1 but realized that this was just one more iteration of the loop, just another push onto the stack. Now here, what I’d like to do is attempt to establish at least a temporary common ground, based on words from
this conversation, the one in the current thread:
The perceiver, the perceiving and the perceived are the same. The difficulty is just in mind going mad with it's butcher blade. I explained the big-picture whyfors of this to Andrew
here. To be clear, I went along with dropping the "ultimately" for the sake of seeing where the conversation would go. I certainly respect your maintenance of it and see the practicality of it for establishing context and relative truth.
And now, one last time, once and for all: when you make the statement that the dream and the dreamer are the same you already have blood on your hands. I would guess that this is why it’s referred to as “non-duality”, instead of “monism”, "not-twoness" instead of "
ONENESS". In fact, the cutting is started long before the talking or the typing begins, during the thought process, when the expression of the idea is accessed.
<digression>Andrew, if yer listenin’ at this point, as I recall right now without re-reading, you were right and I was wrong about the definition of “non-duality” in the Silence thread.</digression>
To be as explicit here as possible: you say you see no paradox, but in using the word you are on notice of it and you’ve expressed it yourself: “no thought is ultimately true”.
To then say that you don’t see a paradox is, in itself, just another version of the paradox.
We will never agree on this Phil and I am
so more than ok with that!.
Do you know why?
Because I don’t think that you are wrong. … and while I know that I’m right, I also know that being right about this is utterly meaningless.
Don’t matta’ … just content … ain’t ME!
Just because I see a paradox, doesn’t imply:
I AM THE PARADOX.
Because, as I’ve said before, I see the paradox at our root (I won’t say “at the root of our existence” btw, now that you’ve explained to me what that word means to you), but also, as I’ve said, from very close to the outset:
As we live, from within, the paradox dissolves. In other words:
I AM.
No more instances of integral anomolies. From here on out, when this conversation starts, I’m going to link a
√-1 back to this post, kinda just like that …
(man, sometimes I could just kiss myself)Consider this the version of the meeting in the Architects room where Neo smiles, removes his trenchcoat, and tosses it to the Architect:
“Here, you’re gonna’ need that”
and walks on out to find a good steakhouse.
---
And, just for added comedic effect to fit things in with the clip, here is the first substantial conversation that I ever had with enigma … which was about ( … wait for it … )
CHOICE!For the record, here was the
first integral instance of the anomaly.
---
Ok, now, since there will no longer be instances of integral anomalies, I will present the one that, as I mentioned earlier on in the thread, would have been my favorite:
I didn't hear Porto dismiss anything, just saying that they are one and the same. The distinction is imagined.
(for this scene please replace the vocal affect of Neo with the deep, slow drawling Cali accent of one of his earlier roles, that of
“Ted”)
Neo: (moving around excitedly) “Nah Nah Nah … noooo waaay duuude!”
(Neo points at the Architect): “’Cause if what your sayin’ is like, all true an’ sh!t like … well … well … that’s not what
Niiiiz says dude!”
(Architect purses his lips, raises his brows, peniss head forward) “The channel generating agent constantly overwrites the memory allocated to substantive authority based on matters of the equation remainder”.
Neo (quite agitated): “Nooo waaay duuude! Nah-Uh! IIIIIIt’s
NIIIIIIZ! … he’s all like, if you call everything a dream it’s just like … all like another
DREAM an’ sh!t!”
(with that, Neo flips the Architect the
finger)
Big heart out to ya’ Phil, with serious love,
Bill
(ps: who be da’ Kraaken now!)
why are you bringing me into this? (
)
