|
Post by silence on Jul 6, 2013 22:02:10 GMT -5
You don't belong in the moderated section because your ontology does not allow space for having values. My ontology does. I am happy to take this to the unmoderated section if you like. Well, your ontology doesn't seem to allow you being comfy with that. Seems you got worked up a little lately. Or is this how 'embodying the Christ Consciousness Energies more fully' looks like? And don't expect me to baby-sit you thru your temper tantrums in the venting area. You wanted to delineate and divvy-up forum experience, now deal with it. He's currently embodying Christ when he was flipping over tables and showing everyone what's up.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Jul 6, 2013 23:30:31 GMT -5
Hahahaha. There is no True or False! There is only 'this'. Is that true or false? It is exactly what it is. Sorry E!
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Jul 6, 2013 23:45:00 GMT -5
Greetings.. Any conceptual argument about the nature of 'this'. That wasn't helpful.. what is "this"? Be well.. Existence, Reality, The Universe, What IS.....whatever you wanna call 'it'. Arguments about the nature of it seem to have always been happening, and it seems like they probably always will be. ROFL!!!
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 7, 2013 0:10:46 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. That wasn't helpful.. what is "this"? Be well.. Existence, Reality, The Universe, What IS.....whatever you wanna call 'it'. Arguments about the nature of it seem to have always been happening, and it seems like they probably always will be. ROFL!!! So.. you can't tell the difference between someone sharing their 'observation' of what 'is', and an argument.. and, if you can convince yourself it's an argument, you believe you can 'Roll On The Floor Laughing ' to escape engaging the reality you don't understand.. this is the other 'Hammer Syndrome', where to 'you, the hammer', everything you don't understand looks like a 'nail', and you hit it with misunderstanding.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 7, 2013 0:10:53 GMT -5
Is that true or false? It is exactly what it is. Sorry E! Is that true?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 2:01:45 GMT -5
You don't belong in the moderated section because your ontology does not allow space for having values. My ontology does. I am happy to take this to the unmoderated section if you like. Well, your ontology doesn't seem to allow you being comfy with that. Seems you got worked up a little lately. Or is this how 'embodying the Christ Consciousness Energies more fully' looks like? And don't expect me to baby-sit you thru your temper tantrums in the venting area. You wanted to delineate and divvy-up forum experience, now deal with it. I'm not worked up, just got very little tolerance for your inanity right now. You really should be ashamed of the way you go about things on this forum but your kindergarten version of non-duality unfortunately will not allow you to take a look at your behaviour. You should abandon non-duality and work on your spirituality. I know that's not a very non-dualistically correct thing to say, but nevertheless its true.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 2:04:08 GMT -5
No. What it means is that dualities are no longer the most important thing in our lives. It doesn't make them irrelevant. What this means is that knowing something to be true or false, real or illusion, actual or imaginary, is no longer the most important thing in our lives. It means that protecting the boundary between self and other is no longer the most important thing in our lives. It means that knowledge is no longer the most important thing in our lives. Being 'flexible' about truth is obviously not about level of importance. If it's not so important you would just lose interest in talking about it, and I don't see you losing interest. This comes across as if you felt you had to 'retort' in some way, but couldn't really come up with much.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 7, 2013 3:02:24 GMT -5
Being 'flexible' about truth is obviously not about level of importance. If it's not so important you would just lose interest in talking about it, and I don't see you losing interest. This comes across as if you felt you had to 'retort' in some way, but couldn't really come up with much. This comes across as though you're upset. I would like you to address my points.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 3:21:19 GMT -5
This comes across as if you felt you had to 'retort' in some way, but couldn't really come up with much. This comes across as though you're upset. I would like you to address my points. Upset, no. Okay, I will address your points. Although dualities are not of primary importance to me these days, I value honesty highly, and this value sometimes manifests in such a way that makes it seem as if I am interested in dualities such as truth and falsity. But, I have no interest in the acquisition of knowledge i.e. in knowing something to be true or false for the sake of knowing something to be true or false. This also means that I have no intrinsic care as to whether I am residing in reality or illusion, if I am residing in actuality or imagination, or whether I am residing in delusion or sanity. There are more important things to me than knowing the truth of something, though occasionally these important things will coincide with knowing the truth of something. Given that you posit realizations as truths that exist in some realm prior to mind/Mind (and prior to 'the imagined'), dualities remain of primary importance to you. Its really not me that overvalues 'thought', its you, and this is reflected in your focus on 'what in blazes is happening'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 7, 2013 4:43:48 GMT -5
Is that true or false? It is exactly what it is. Sorry E! (** splash! **)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 7, 2013 4:48:25 GMT -5
1. Is it possible to have any type of thought whatsoever that does not reference or involve one or more of the five sensory perceptions? 1. Is it possible to have any type of thought whatsoever that does not reference or involve one or more of the five sensory perceptions? This is a form of the "when does it stop being a car?" koan. On reconsideration this isn't the case at all. Steve, this question is one that applying reason toward isn't helpful, but that's because it's literally nonsensical. Are you approaching this question with intellect? The thing is, that it's based on the faulty premise of objectivity. There is a logical and reasoned explanation for that available to the rational, thinking mind btw but it involves some complicated and technical knowledge, something that I know you've got no interest in at this point. Have you considered the possibility that your interest in the question is just your mind dancing around something it can't hold?
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Jul 7, 2013 5:05:15 GMT -5
Greetings.. Existence, Reality, The Universe, What IS.....whatever you wanna call 'it'. Arguments about the nature of it seem to have always been happening, and it seems like they probably always will be. ROFL!!! So.. you can't tell the difference between someone sharing their 'observation' of what 'is', and an argument.. and, if you can convince yourself it's an argument, you believe you can 'Roll On The Floor Laughing ' to escape engaging the reality you don't understand.. this is the other 'Hammer Syndrome', where to 'you, the hammer', everything you don't understand looks like a 'nail', and you hit it with misunderstanding.. Be well.. I share observations of What IS all the time without arguing the point. Other times, I will argue a little. I can certainly tell the difference. However, I know full well that every word of an observation is every bit as misconceived any argument. Apparently, misconceptions happen. Always have, always will.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Jul 7, 2013 5:14:54 GMT -5
It is exactly what it is. Sorry E! Is that true? Nothing is ultimately true.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 5:19:43 GMT -5
Greetings.. So.. you can't tell the difference between someone sharing their 'observation' of what 'is', and an argument.. and, if you can convince yourself it's an argument, you believe you can 'Roll On The Floor Laughing ' to escape engaging the reality you don't understand.. this is the other 'Hammer Syndrome', where to 'you, the hammer', everything you don't understand looks like a 'nail', and you hit it with misunderstanding.. Be well.. I share observations of What IS all the time without arguing the point. Other times, I will argue a little. I can certainly tell the difference. However, I know full well that every word of an observation is every bit as misconceived any argument. Apparently, misconceptions happen. Always have, always will. Would you say there is any possibility at all that your observations (and arguments) are not misconceived?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 7, 2013 5:38:34 GMT -5
Greetings.. Any conceptual argument about the nature of 'this'. That wasn't helpful.. what is "this"? Be well.. ok, you just asked him what argument he was referring to and then when he answered you you argued with him about it.
|
|