|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2013 3:38:11 GMT -5
In all honesty, some of what laffey says makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I actually agree. I pretty much skip most of it. Ahhh, life is so much more poignant with the occasional measure or two of unrequited love! (** blows Si a kiss **)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2013 4:07:45 GMT -5
Here, let me fulfill this expectation of being obscure ... Yes, it's laughter's abstruse talk that is keeping the world from waking up... If we kill Laffy, we can free the world from suffering. Everybody grab your pitchforks and lanterns! <jimmy_stewart> now now ... just wait a minute here! <jimmy_stewart> 4:40 :20 1:46: "yeah I know what you're talkin' about! you're talkin' about somethin' ya' can't get yer fingers on and it's knawin' ya'!
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 14, 2013 8:18:04 GMT -5
Ah. Laffy! I just love Jimmy S. All I have to do is hear his name or see his pic and hear that delightful quirky voice of his ringing in my ears. Delightful!
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Sept 14, 2013 9:28:02 GMT -5
There is no truth to an image in the mind. Even you understand this. That said, why the effort to 'challenge' it, except to replace it with another image, equally untrue? In the end, the 'truth' is conveyed by neither. The entirety of what we discuss here is in the form of conceptual truth/falsity. There's no way to communicate but through concepts. 'Conceptual truth/falsity'? What's that? How can no thought be true, but a concept be true? To me, all concepts obstruct clarity. I'd offer that this is why Niz advised to just stick with the 'sense I am'. I know you like to call stuff illusions, and if you want to call concepts illusions, that's fine, but here, you appear to be suggesting that we form and express illusions to dispel illusions. I don't recall buying into that one.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2013 10:10:33 GMT -5
Yes, Figgy conversations can be complicated by their nature as one must either follow her brush strokes around with a cleaning rag, or explain why one doesn't care to pose for her anymore. The cleaning and explaining may seem more complicated than the picture she's painting, since the picture has coherence by design. priceless imagery Don't discuss anything with Figs without wearing your painting smock or you'll ruin your clothes.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2013 10:14:10 GMT -5
I don't understand any of that, which only goes to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are abstruse. If you were not abstruse, you would not be saying things in an abstruse way, which shows to go ya how abstruse you are. There's no point in responding because everyone can see how abstruse you are, and your response would be too abstruse to comprehend. I see why you get along so well with your abstruse club members, but your abstrusity can be seen clearly with a still mind. Drop your beliefs and you will see the what-isness of your abstruseness. I can thinking that attachment negativity pumpkin. Clarity muffins on windshields simply are, there is no expression of this thatness that this's thusly. Qualia. Is a rock responsible for it's rockiness? The question of this answer solipsitically trick or treats during confessional. I and, dishonestly, but right inaction trumps badness. The turkey did not why the road and crossless crosses are forbourn until they are not and unless they are. Well, okay, that's a valid point.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 14, 2013 10:17:25 GMT -5
priceless imagery Don't discuss anything with Figs without wearing your painting smock or you'll ruin your clothes. You're just jealous cuz she paints purdier pictures than you do.......J/K
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2013 10:38:15 GMT -5
The entirety of what we discuss here is in the form of conceptual truth/falsity. There's no way to communicate but through concepts. 'Conceptual truth/falsity'? What's that? How can no thought be true, but a concept be true? To me, all concepts obstruct clarity. I'd offer that this is why Niz advised to just stick with the 'sense I am'. I know you like to call stuff illusions, and if you want to call concepts illusions, that's fine, but here, you appear to be suggesting that we form and express illusions to dispel illusions. I don't recall buying into that one. This spearatyouality stuff is just conceptual to you, isn't it? A way for you to leave the world behind and hide in your beingness. Niz did a lot of talking and used a lot of concepts and challenged a lot of illusions.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 14, 2013 10:38:35 GMT -5
priceless imagery Don't discuss anything with Figs without wearing your painting smock or you'll ruin your clothes. It's too late!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2013 10:44:24 GMT -5
Don't discuss anything with Figs without wearing your painting smock or you'll ruin your clothes. You're just jealous cuz she paints purdier pictures than you do.......J/K I'm into realism more than impressionistic art. Laffy is into abstracts. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Sept 14, 2013 10:47:52 GMT -5
'Conceptual truth/falsity'? What's that? How can no thought be true, but a concept be true? To me, all concepts obstruct clarity. I'd offer that this is why Niz advised to just stick with the 'sense I am'. I know you like to call stuff illusions, and if you want to call concepts illusions, that's fine, but here, you appear to be suggesting that we form and express illusions to dispel illusions. I don't recall buying into that one. This spearatyouality stuff is just conceptual to you, isn't it? A way for you to leave the world behind and hide in your beingness. Obviously, your spearatyouality stuff is merely conceptual, and I surmise that this is why you and A have gone on for page after page, each with your own conceptual understanding of everything. For me, it IS beingness (or Intelligence, or God, or 'what is', or whatever you want to call it). How would you know? You've already claimed a gazillion times that you've never read him. Otherwise, I don't see Niz discussing concepts with anyone, but merely expressing what is. Yes, he challenged, but the challenge was all in the effort to negate conceptual understanding, and get folks to see their beingness (i.e., 'sense I am').
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 14, 2013 10:54:32 GMT -5
This spearatyouality stuff is just conceptual to you, isn't it? A way for you to leave the world behind and hide in your beingness. Obviously, your spearatyouality stuff is merely conceptual, and I surmise that this is why you and A have gone on for page after page, each with your own conceptual understanding of everything. For me, it IS beingness (or Intelligence, or God, or 'what is', or whatever you want to call it). How would you know? You've already claimed a gazillion times that you've never read him. Otherwise, I don't see Niz discussing concepts with anyone, but merely expressing what is. Yes, he challenged, but the challenge was all in the effort to negate conceptual understanding, and get folks to see their beingness (i.e., 'sense I am'). He believes in learning through osmosis~!
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 14, 2013 11:09:37 GMT -5
Greetings.. I dunno about explaining behavior through logic, I'm just saying that if one has a conversational style that is focused on forming a comprehensive image in the listener's mind, the communication is more effective because folks understand by relating to mental images, and Figgy seems to have a talent for that. However, communicating an image is one thing, and verifying the truth of it is another. If the image is understood, but the challenges to it are not, (which is what happened to you in that Laffy/Figs conversation) then the truth may not be conveyed. Yeah, when I'm involved in a one-on-one conversation that gets deep, I'm not focused at all on what anyone else who's reading it is going to think of it, I just want to reach the one I'm talking to. At the 'depths' you abandon the discussion when the direction doesn't suit you.. you deviate into obscure and ambiguous imagery and references.. if you want to actually "reach the one [you're] talking to", you maintain their level of comprehension with your word-skill, and you are quite capable of that.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by silence on Sept 14, 2013 11:14:03 GMT -5
I actually agree. I pretty much skip most of it. Ahhh, life is so much more poignant with the occasional measure or two of unrequited love! (** blows Si a kiss **) Right...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2013 11:14:15 GMT -5
This spearatyouality stuff is just conceptual to you, isn't it? A way for you to leave the world behind and hide in your beingness. Obviously, your spearatyouality stuff is merely conceptual, and I surmise that this is why you and A have gone on for page after page, each with your own conceptual understanding of everything. For me, it IS beingness (or Intelligence, or God, or 'what is', or whatever you want to call it). How would you know? You've already claimed a gazillion times that you've never read him. Otherwise, I don't see Niz discussing concepts with anyone, but merely expressing what is. Yes, he challenged, but the challenge was all in the effort to negate conceptual understanding, and get folks to see their beingness (i.e., 'sense I am'). This isn't the advanced class. Mostly, what we do here is ego work, trying to be conscious, to stop the self deception. This isn't a Satsang. That would require sincerity.
|
|