|
Post by Reefs on Jul 7, 2013 10:00:23 GMT -5
You see me as seeing myself as superior to you, and as I write this message, there may be some degree of truth to that because my ontology does leave space for values and morality, however, any superiority passes when the message has gone. I could ignore you and I do at times, but no doubt you will continue to chase me round for as long as I am here, in which case, I will continue to challenge you on the wrongness of your spirituality/non-duality. Not just 'some degree'. It's full blown extreme spiritual arrogance again. The same kind of ESA you were showing just before you went on hiatus last time.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 7, 2013 10:03:20 GMT -5
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. Well, yeah, it would wouldn't it? You're not so interested in what's true, but you value honest highly. You highly value honesty from a potential position of illusion, imagination and insanity? How's that working out for ya? That's not true, but I can see how it might seem like it is from a positionless position of illusion, imagination and insanity.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 10:09:07 GMT -5
You see me as seeing myself as superior to you, and as I write this message, there may be some degree of truth to that because my ontology does leave space for values and morality, however, any superiority passes when the message has gone. I could ignore you and I do at times, but no doubt you will continue to chase me round for as long as I am here, in which case, I will continue to challenge you on the wrongness of your spirituality/non-duality. Not just 'some degree'. It's full blown extreme spiritual arrogance again. The same kind of ESA you were showing just before you went on hiatus last time. It may seem to you like more than 'some degree', and you may wish it to be more than 'some degree' but its not. I simply have very little tolerance of your nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 10:12:39 GMT -5
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. Well, yeah, it would wouldn't it? You're not so interested in what's true, but you value honest highly. You highly value honesty from a potential position of illusion, imagination and insanity? How's that working out for ya? That's not true, but I can see how it might seem like it is from a positionless position of illusion, imagination and insanity. That's correct. I do not consider 'what's true' to be of major importance, but I value honesty highly. Honesty is an internal process, a state, whereas a focus on 'what's true' is a focus on knowledge. And yes, I value honesty highly from a potential position of illusion, imagination and delusion. It is true that you posit realizations as truths that exist in some realm prior to mind, you said so yourself on a number of occasions.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 7, 2013 10:20:21 GMT -5
Is that true? Nothing is ultimately true. As I'm starting to get dizzy, I'll just suggest that there IS such thing as true and false or you wouldn't be making true/false statements. It's true that it's Sunday here in the US, and it's false that it's Thursday, so how can there be no such thing as true and false? To say nothing is ultimately true just means there's no absolute foundation for contextual truths. It doesn't mean there's no such thing as truth/falsity.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 10:25:15 GMT -5
Nothing is ultimately true. As I'm starting to get dizzy, I'll just suggest that there IS such thing as true and false or you wouldn't be making true/false statements. It's true that it's Sunday here in the US, and it's false that it's Thursday, so how can there be no such thing as true and false? To say nothing is ultimately true just means there's no absolute foundation for contextual truths. It doesn't mean there's no such thing as truth/falsity. hahaha I wondered how you would reply to that. Again, its a classic example of the problem of your ontology. An 'ultimate' is affirmed, and then because of that, objective contexts are also affirmed in which knowledge IS true and false. Its all such a balls up.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 7, 2013 10:31:37 GMT -5
It may seem to you like more than 'some degree', and you may wish it to be more than 'some degree' but its not. I simply have very little tolerance of your nonsense. You keep saying that. And you also keep replying. Why can't you be comfy with other members 'nonsense'? Doesn't your dogma require you to let go of that mental position immediately? But you keep saying it again and again. Also: Is it true that it is 'nonsense'? Can you absolutely know that it's true that it is 'nonsense'? How do you react, what happens, when you believe that thought that it's 'nonsense'? Who would you be without the thought that it's 'nonsense'?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 7, 2013 10:33:02 GMT -5
Right. Niz and "what the mind has done the mind must undo" is absurd. Mind is involved in the undoing, but not by choosing to unknow stuff. I thought I made that clear. I could pick that apart, but it would just be mind focusing on the detail. I get what you're saying, now.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 7, 2013 10:33:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. 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. LOL.. Seriously? "This" is an an answer? and, now 'you' want to argue with 'me' about it.. see how this works? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 7, 2013 10:35:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. ok, you just asked him what argument he was referring to and then when he answered you you argued with him about it. LOL.. Seriously? "This" is an an answer? and, now 'you' want to argue with 'me' about it.. see how this works? Be well.. So if there's no argument about it then why did you answer him ... Mr. "Cosmic Whole"?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 10:35:42 GMT -5
It may seem to you like more than 'some degree', and you may wish it to be more than 'some degree' but its not. I simply have very little tolerance of your nonsense. You keep saying that. And you also keep replying. Why can't you be comfy with other members 'nonsense'? Doesn't your dogma require you to let go of that mental position immediately? But you keep saying it again and again. Also: Is it true that it is 'nonsense'? Can you absolutely know that it's true that it is 'nonsense'? How do you react, what happens, when you believe that thought that it's 'nonsense'? Who would you be without the thought that it's 'nonsense'? There is no sense of need to question, and that's because there is no sense of there being a problem with the experience. I used to tolerate a lot more than I did now, but I guess my priorities have shifted a little these days, and I'm no longer inclined to tolerate what I used to.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 7, 2013 10:37:08 GMT -5
Andrew, all feelings of superiority are contextual, except in Narcissism. The absence of the stimulus does not translate into absence of reactivity to the stimulus. Why do you feel superior to Reefs? Is the feeling of superiority something you want and value? When confronting Reefs and engaging with a level of superiority (and to be clear, it is very 'on the surface'), there would have to be a want there for it, yes. The surface superiority is gone the moment the message has been sent. I don't value superiority, but I am willing to engage with it, just as I am willing to tell someone when their behaviour is wrong. I do engage with morality. You may have noticed that Enigma also tells people that they should be ashamed of themselves, it might also be interesting to hear how he explains it. I try to engage peeps in the paradigm in which they operate and in the context of what they bring to the forum. You and Arisha and Question have at times operated in a moralistic context, and that's when I may point out the inconsistencies. You should never be ashamed, but your belief system might demand that you do.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 7, 2013 10:41:43 GMT -5
When confronting Reefs and engaging with a level of superiority (and to be clear, it is very 'on the surface'), there would have to be a want there for it, yes. The surface superiority is gone the moment the message has been sent. I don't value superiority, but I am willing to engage with it, just as I am willing to tell someone when their behaviour is wrong. I do engage with morality. You may have noticed that Enigma also tells people that they should be ashamed of themselves, it might also be interesting to hear how he explains it. I try to engage peeps in the paradigm in which they operate and in the context of what they bring to the forum. You and Arisha and Question have at times operated in a moralistic context, and that's when I may point out the inconsistencies. You should never be ashamed, but your belief system might demand that you do. Those that do engage with morality are likely to pay attention to their conscience anyway, so for that reason I am less likely to tell someone that engages with morality that they should be ashamed. Fascinating that you would only tell those that DO pay attention to conscience that they should be ashamed. Strikes me as very manipulative.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 7, 2013 10:44:11 GMT -5
Well, yeah, it would wouldn't it? You're not so interested in what's true, but you value honest highly. You highly value honesty from a potential position of illusion, imagination and insanity? How's that working out for ya? That's not true, but I can see how it might seem like it is from a positionless position of illusion, imagination and insanity. That's correct. I do not consider 'what's true' to be of major importance, but I value honesty highly. Honesty is an internal process, a state, whereas a focus on 'what's true' is a focus on knowledge. And yes, I value honesty highly from a potential position of illusion, imagination and delusion. Okay, my work is done here. (already) It's not true. Realizations are empty. They reveal what is not so. It is not so that there is a realm prior to mind.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 7, 2013 10:46:14 GMT -5
As I'm starting to get dizzy, I'll just suggest that there IS such thing as true and false or you wouldn't be making true/false statements. It's true that it's Sunday here in the US, and it's false that it's Thursday, so how can there be no such thing as true and false? To say nothing is ultimately true just means there's no absolute foundation for contextual truths. It doesn't mean there's no such thing as truth/falsity. hahaha I wondered how you would reply to that. Again, its a classic example of the problem of your ontology. An 'ultimate' is affirmed, and then because of that, objective contexts are also affirmed in which knowledge IS true and false. Its all such a balls up. Is that true?
|
|