|
Post by topology on Aug 27, 2013 6:52:53 GMT -5
My advice to you guys is to actually go educate yourselves about Freud and psychoanalysis. Until you do it is perhaps better to say nothing than put forth these embarrassing caricatures and thereby display your own ignorance. I think its safe to say that the only person feeling embarrassment right now is you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2013 8:55:33 GMT -5
How could you ever know how "far back" something went? The only way you'll know if you remain despite appearances is after the body/mind is dead. Oh, unless you have a Realization. You mean how far back YOU go? Because everything else is in front of you. "Everything else" is a big claim. If all you can do is see 'forward' then you can not know what is behind. A sea of relative change could certainly include concepts of change and changelessness. It depends on the perspective, that's why it's relative. Things can seem to be changeless or seem to be timeless. A salmon swimming up river probably knows a lot about water and waterlessness. Depends on the fish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2013 8:57:01 GMT -5
How could you ever know how "far back" something went? The only way you'll know if you remain despite appearances is after the body/mind is dead. Oh, unless you have a Realization. When I 'look and see' I mostly note a lot of change happening. And no, this does not necessarily mean that to note change there must be changelessness. There can be just a sea of relative change, for example. But the point is, even it seems like there is changelessness, it is just supposition/belief-making to call it eternal, limitless, yada yada. I don't see how eternity can be known beyond conjecture/belief.Well what's worse is that it can't even really be stated because any reference to it bounds it. No amount or quality of rotating perspective, of applying a different set of ideas, will ever change that. Someone can talk about the absence of a limit and you can think about the absence of a limit, but none of that is the absence of the limit. Agreed. It can't be known, only imagined. So why use it as a descriptor?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2013 9:00:02 GMT -5
My advice to you guys is to actually go educate yourselves about Freud and psychoanalysis. Until you do it is perhaps better to say nothing than put forth these embarrassing caricatures and thereby display your own ignorance. I'm mostly ignorant of Freud, as is obvious, in the same ways being displayed above. Popular characterizations riddled with misconceptions and misunderstandings. But I know enough not to disregard a huge legacy.\ I've read a little Zizek, who I think was a Lacan fan.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 27, 2013 9:11:13 GMT -5
Well what's worse is that it can't even really be stated because any reference to it bounds it. No amount or quality of rotating perspective, of applying a different set of ideas, will ever change that. Someone can talk about the absence of a limit and you can think about the absence of a limit, but none of that is the absence of the limit. Agreed. It can't be known, only imagined. So why use it as a descriptor? It can only be known to Itself, directly; it cannot be known by a person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2013 9:22:48 GMT -5
Agreed. It can't be known, only imagined. So why use it as a descriptor? It can only be known to Itself, directly; it cannot be known by a person. Well, that's the end of the road. I'll know it when I know it, but I, as Max, won't be there to know it. This is the Realization thingy all over again. So the statement "If I am Real I Have to Exist all the time" is really just another redefinition of "I." It's I without all the typical boundaries; for example, personhood. (BTW, I stole that statement from the James Schwartz pdf that nobodyhome posted the other day.)
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 27, 2013 10:01:27 GMT -5
Well what's worse is that it can't even really be stated because any reference to it bounds it. No amount or quality of rotating perspective, of applying a different set of ideas, will ever change that. Someone can talk about the absence of a limit and you can think about the absence of a limit, but none of that is the absence of the limit. Agreed. It can't be known, only imagined. So why use it as a descriptor? I disagree. There is something profound in the loss of distinctness. The drop merging into the ocean. A crystal dissolving. Losing form into formlessness. The mind losing coherence and revealing "pure" awareness. In those moments when the finite becomes less finite... It's not a conceptual knowing, but a knowing at the level of being. Until that dissolution happens for you and you experience it directly, your knowing will only be conceptually imagined. But it can be known, to the extent that the mind can know that it is dissolving into something which subsumes it, something which is more fundamental.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2013 11:27:44 GMT -5
Well what's worse is that it can't even really be stated because any reference to it bounds it. No amount or quality of rotating perspective, of applying a different set of ideas, will ever change that. Someone can talk about the absence of a limit and you can think about the absence of a limit, but none of that is the absence of the limit. Agreed. It can't be known, only imagined. So why use it as a descriptor? Well first off I don't know if you noticed but this is really a question you're posing to yourself because you're the one who did that first. The point I made was that what appears to you appears limited. You'll find agreement on the point of "can't be known, only imagined", in that on one hand the mind is a generator of imagined limitations ... but on the other hand, the absence of limitations is an absence. There's another more obvious reason to talk about limitlessness though, because whatever you're seeking, whatever you might take yourself to be, do you really think that anything that can be bounded is something that you'd be satisfied with? In this, the notion of the absence of limitation would seem to be a characteristic of the end of the search.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2013 13:18:02 GMT -5
It can only be known to Itself, directly; it cannot be known by a person. Well, that's the end of the road. I'll know it when I know it, but I, as Max, won't be there to know it. This is the Realization thingy all over again. So the statement "If I am Real I Have to Exist all the time" is really just another redefinition of "I." It's I without all the typical boundaries; for example, personhood. (BTW, I stole that statement from the James Schwartz pdf that nobodyhome posted the other day.) To my eye, JS's definition of identity embeds eternity into it with three words. Guess dressing up "what am I"? with first asking "am I?" (" If I am real"), and then conjecturing on a limitless nature is a way to get the mind interested anyways.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2013 13:25:09 GMT -5
Well, that's the end of the road. I'll know it when I know it, but I, as Max, won't be there to know it. This is the Realization thingy all over again. So the statement "If I am Real I Have to Exist all the time" is really just another redefinition of "I." It's I without all the typical boundaries; for example, personhood. (BTW, I stole that statement from the James Schwartz pdf that nobodyhome posted the other day.) To my eye, JS's definition of identity embeds eternity into it with three words. Guess dressing up "what am I"? with first asking "am I?" (" If I am real"), and then conjecturing on a limitless nature is a way to get the mind interested anyways. I don't know the context, but maybe it was preceded by pointing to the fact of existence, which by default is YOUR existence, and then followed with the pointer that existence itself can't come and go; can't be born and die as if it were something appearing and disappearing to existence.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Aug 27, 2013 16:56:26 GMT -5
"If I am Real I Have to Exist all the Time" -- this seems like a cornerstone foundation for much of what is pointed to here. There is the ever-changing sea of appearances, etc. and the changeless. It is the latter which is given primacy and regarded as real and existing. There is what you are not, which is an area of wide agreement, and then there is what you are. Some folks call this unbounded awareness, Self, __________, God.... Obviously, it is said, you can not just be a mix of appearances, just change itself. You are that which makes change possible. Without you, what is real, no change could be recognized. You were never born (and will never died), yada yada. I think I get the argument. I just ain't so sure about it (no surprise). First of all, there are very few who claim to have gotten some sort of testimony that this is actually the case. That testimony could only come from someone who appears to have changed it's way into oblivion but still sends a message back (someone who died but was able to relay a message beyond death.) Second, absent evidence or testimony, it just seems like a logical conclusion, a supposition. IOW, just more thinking. Third, the only live testimony I've heard is from folks who have 'Realized' it. But the thing is, one can't know anything about Realization unless one has Realized. There's no argument. Doubt will never cease through some process of logical deduction. You're completely wasting your time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 7:26:03 GMT -5
"If I am Real I Have to Exist all the Time" -- this seems like a cornerstone foundation for much of what is pointed to here. There is the ever-changing sea of appearances, etc. and the changeless. It is the latter which is given primacy and regarded as real and existing. There is what you are not, which is an area of wide agreement, and then there is what you are. Some folks call this unbounded awareness, Self, __________, God.... Obviously, it is said, you can not just be a mix of appearances, just change itself. You are that which makes change possible. Without you, what is real, no change could be recognized. You were never born (and will never died), yada yada. I think I get the argument. I just ain't so sure about it (no surprise). First of all, there are very few who claim to have gotten some sort of testimony that this is actually the case. That testimony could only come from someone who appears to have changed it's way into oblivion but still sends a message back (someone who died but was able to relay a message beyond death.) Second, absent evidence or testimony, it just seems like a logical conclusion, a supposition. IOW, just more thinking. Third, the only live testimony I've heard is from folks who have 'Realized' it. But the thing is, one can't know anything about Realization unless one has Realized. There's no argument. Doubt will never cease through some process of logical deduction. You're completely wasting your time. Well, I feel the love, but you're wrong. Uttering "you're completely wasting your time" is a waste of time. Is burping a waste of time? Also, the you you are addressing in "you're completely wasting your time" is the same thing I'm referring to when I use "I" to say "I think I get the argument." That's the problem. And while that you/I has time to waste, it is irrelevant to the the "I" used in the argument, which has been redefined to mean unbounded by personhood and life/death. And there is an argument, which is not mine. I am skeptical of it, and did not understand it. Now I know why I didn't understand. But really, I don't have much of an argument with it all being a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 28, 2013 8:33:10 GMT -5
There's no argument. Doubt will never cease through some process of logical deduction. You're completely wasting your time. Well, I feel the love, but you're wrong. Uttering "you're completely wasting your time" is a waste of time. Is burping a waste of time? Also, the you you are addressing in "you're completely wasting your time" is the same thing I'm referring to when I use "I" to say "I think I get the argument." That's the problem. And while that you/I has time to waste, it is irrelevant to the the "I" used in the argument, which has been redefined to mean unbounded by personhood and life/death. And there is an argument, which is not mine. I am skeptical of it, and did not understand it. Now I know why I didn't understand. But really, I don't have much of an argument with it all being a waste of time. While I agree that logical deduction by itself doesn't dispel doubt, that does not preclude other faculties from operating at the same time, such as insight and intuition. If one is purely operating on logic, then I would agree with silence. Clarity, truth, confidence,are all values directly applied to statements by intuition. The application of logic to statements with assigned value at best preserves the assigned value, and at worst degrades it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 11:45:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 28, 2013 11:56:48 GMT -5
Do you see the truth of that?
|
|