|
|
Post by silver on Nov 21, 2013 11:17:37 GMT -5
I thought this was helpful vimeo vid Truthfully, I had to peruse the book that video was based on half a dozen times before I had an inkling of what he was talking about. I still don't get it all though. I don't recommend this even though I appreciate visuals. I can't take the vid seriously. It's full of non-sequiturs. Why is he finding it hard to distinguish between the black dot and the white space around it? Why do other people look like a black dot? In reality other people look not even remotely close to what I look like. Actually other people appear as things. Where does his boredom come from? etc. The message basically come down to "you're just pretending". Why? "Because otherwise you would be bored". Why? Because. Yeah. I saw that one a long time ago, and I thought it was uh, insane? |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 21, 2013 11:27:40 GMT -5
I can't take the vid seriously. It's full of non-sequiturs. Why is he finding it hard to distinguish between the black dot and the white space around it? It's exactly that beginning part that I found helpful in terms of illustrating what all the 'there is no separation' business is about. The black dot can not be a black dot without the background. It's very simple but it took a while to sink in. He's not saying it's hard to distinguish between the two, just that one can not be without the other. There is another big mistake in that way of conceptualizing (and that's all it is btw). We say the black dot can't be thought without a space around it. But what about the white space itself? It has to be infinite, right? We think of the white space as infinite, so why can't we think of the black dot as infinite? This means that even Hillig's way of thinking it is not at all necessary that the black dot needs a background. Next. What does it mean to say that the white space is infinite? I say it's philosophical cheating. Hillig doesn't at all understand what it means for the space to be infinite. It's like Terence McKenna always said, give me one free miracle and I can explain the entire universe. As seekers of truth we don't allow miracles. Whenever you spot a miracle in the narrative then you've spotted the place where the narrator has cheated. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 11:39:52 GMT -5
It's exactly that beginning part that I found helpful in terms of illustrating what all the 'there is no separation' business is about. The black dot can not be a black dot without the background. It's very simple but it took a while to sink in. He's not saying it's hard to distinguish between the two, just that one can not be without the other. There is another big mistake in that way of conceptualizing (and that's all it is btw). We say the black dot can't be thought without a space around it. But what about the white space itself? It has to be infinite, right? We think of the white space as infinite, so why can't we think of the black dot as infinite? This means that even Hillig's way of thinking it is not at all necessary that the black dot needs a background. Next. What does it mean to say that the white space is infinite? I say it's philosophical cheating. Hillig doesn't at all understand what it means for the space to be infinite. It's like Terence McKenna always said, give me one free miracle and I can explain the entire universe. As seekers of truth we don't allow miracles. Whenever you spot a miracle in the narrative then you've spotted the place where the narrator has cheated. Why does it have to be infinite? It just has to seem to be all encompassing or perhaps infinite. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 11:45:31 GMT -5
It's exactly that beginning part that I found helpful in terms of illustrating what all the 'there is no separation' business is about. The black dot can not be a black dot without the background. It's very simple but it took a while to sink in. He's not saying it's hard to distinguish between the two, just that one can not be without the other. There is another big mistake in that way of conceptualizing (and that's all it is btw). We say the black dot can't be thought without a space around it. But what about the white space itself? It has to be infinite, right? We think of the white space as infinite, so why can't we think of the black dot as infinite? This means that even Hillig's way of thinking it is not at all necessary that the black dot needs a background. Next. What does it mean to say that the white space is infinite? I say it's philosophical cheating. Hillig doesn't at all understand what it means for the space to be infinite. It's like Terence McKenna always said, give me one free miracle and I can explain the entire universe. As seekers of truth we don't allow miracles. Whenever you spot a miracle in the narrative then you've spotted the place where the narrator has cheated. The point is to reflect on how one thinks of oneself as separate from all the other stuff going on. The black dot on white is just simplification so that folks like me can see more clearly what is being 'pointed to.' The idea is that the concept of being separate from everything else is just a boundary created in the mind. |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 21, 2013 12:14:47 GMT -5
Why does it have to be infinite? It just has to seem to be all encompassing or perhaps infinite. I'm just following through wth Hillig's logic to show that it ends up in an absurdity. I agree that infinity is not necessary, but evidently Hillig disagrees, otherwise he wouldn't have seen a need to posit that the black dot needs a space around it. And if the black dot needs a space, then why? Because it is finite. And why doesn't the white space need no space around it? Because the white space is infinite. And if the white space were finite, then we ask Hillig where it is situated, so again to apply the same criteria to the white space which he applied to the black dot, he will need to posit that the white space is situated in some further de facto infinite space. The "it just has to seem" is not a valid argument. Is he talking about how illusions function? Then what is he talking about "meaning of life" for? "Here, look, I'll show you an illusion and here I'll show you the meaning of life." Doesn't work. In his mind he doesn't think that he is talking about illusion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 12:28:38 GMT -5
There is no you to benefit from any kind of understanding or comprehension... What's Happening is Freedom wanting a schematic so it can find something it's never lost... Paradoxically it's the funniest game imaginable... Thanks for your time and effort, trf. I appreciate it. The one who appreciates this crazy message that there is no you, is an illusion... Whatever arises is Being but it's not arising for a somebody... There is the possibility that the illusion of Silver in which the world arises, simply vanishes, and what remains is just What's Happening. And there is nothing like understanding, or comprehension, or meditation, or ATA, or samadhi, or psychotherapy, or enlightenment, that can make that happen. It is totally futile for an illusory me, or I, or self, to get This, because if it got what it wanted it would vanish leaving This...  |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 21, 2013 12:32:05 GMT -5
The point is to reflect on how one thinks of oneself as separate from all the other stuff going on. The black dot on white is just simplification so that folks like me can see more clearly what is being 'pointed to.' The idea is that the concept of being separate from everything else is just a boundary created in the mind. He never leaves the metaphor. He is pointing to a metaphor. When do things actually start getting real? In Hillig's model never, he is stuck in some weird inconsistent mythology and mistakes it for reality. Same as all the other nonduality teachers. Rule of thumb: Whenever a nonduality teacher says that "it's just a pointer" is precisely the moment when one should stop taking him seriously. The "it's just a pointer" game doesn't work. How do you bridge the gap between language and real? When do you know that you've arrived at the real if you're using the same mind which you used the pointer on and were incapable to think with more than a pointer? They never stop begging the question. That's why I say, stop the nonsense, be honest and admit what it is that you're actually talking about, namely just some weird private mythology, a personal opinion and not more, at best a logical "if-then" game. The real, by definition, is an inference. The definition of the real is that which resists symbolization, that's why you can't point to it. The best we can do is infer the real by identifying what we believe is its effect on our behaviour and conclude that they occur in reaction to the real. And even in this sense the real is just a gap-filling concept, i.e. our behaviour manifests the inconsistencies, we outsource the imagined and elusive origin of the inconsistencies into the real, when the origin of the inconsistency is understood then our behaviour becomes consistent, i.e. we can write down its modus operandi, and then ironically the real (which was supposed to be responsible for the inconsistent behaviour) suddenly vanishes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 12:33:08 GMT -5
Why does it have to be infinite? It just has to seem to be all encompassing or perhaps infinite. I'm just following through wth Hillig's logic to show that it ends up in an absurdity. I agree that infinity is not necessary, but evidently Hillig disagrees, otherwise he wouldn't have seen a need to posit that the black dot needs a space around it. And if the black dot needs a space, then why? Because it is finite. And why doesn't the white space need no space around it? Because the white space is infinite. I don't see how that follows though. The white space is only necessary to define the limitations of the black dot. No determination is necessary on whether the white space is infinite or not. No conjecture is necessary as to whether the white space has a boundary or not. All that is important in the example is that the black dot depends on contrast with something else. No comment is necessary on what is outside of the background, if anything. I think he's just boiling down one type of illusion. I agree that it is all conceptual and it may or may not have an impact on someone. It helped clarify for me the concept of separation used in nonduality circles but it did not have a profound life meaning impact, alas. Apparently silver just thought it was insane so it's obviously not very helpful to her either. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 21, 2013 12:42:39 GMT -5
What may seem maddeningly inept at illustrating something to one person may be just the ticket for another, so when we see people disagreeing over it, you just gotta keep in mind that we are all from different places n spaces and that our unique way of learning stuff, whether one is more of a kinetic learner or visual or verbal, etc., all makes our decisions for us, in a sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 12:45:55 GMT -5
The point is to reflect on how one thinks of oneself as separate from all the other stuff going on. The black dot on white is just simplification so that folks like me can see more clearly what is being 'pointed to.' The idea is that the concept of being separate from everything else is just a boundary created in the mind. He never leaves the metaphor. He is pointing to a metaphor. When do things actually start getting real? In Hillig's model never, he is stuck in some weird inconsistent mythology and mistakes it for reality. Same as all the other nonduality teachers. Rule of thumb: Whenever a nonduality teacher says that "it's just a pointer" is precisely the moment when one should stop taking him seriously. Haha -- that's a good point. Should put that in a Cautions thread somewhere. wha? Here's a pointer: "nonconceptual awareness." Here's another: "deep sleep," though one could argue that it can be measured as delta waves from EEG or whatever. I'm talking about the experience of deep sleep (not much different than nonconceptual awareness, as I understand it). |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 21, 2013 13:10:16 GMT -5
I'm just following through wth Hillig's logic to show that it ends up in an absurdity. I agree that infinity is not necessary, but evidently Hillig disagrees, otherwise he wouldn't have seen a need to posit that the black dot needs a space around it. And if the black dot needs a space, then why? Because it is finite. And why doesn't the white space need no space around it? Because the white space is infinite. I don't see how that follows though. The white space is only necessary to define the limitations of the black dot. No determination is necessary on whether the white space is infinite or not. No conjecture is necessary as to whether the white space has a boundary or not. All that is important in the example is that the black dot depends on contrast with something else. No comment is necessary on what is outside of the background, if anything. With this logic it's perfectly consistent that white space and black dot could be separate in the strongest ontological sense. You're basically saying that it's consistent that there is a finite white space, just hanging in existence all on its own. Then why not say the same of the black dot? And why not say the same of both the black dot and the white space? |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Nov 21, 2013 13:12:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 21, 2013 13:13:17 GMT -5
I don't see that black dot as being finite. I was a little kid when the first tv sets arrived, so you get to see that black dot getting bigger or getting smaller and disappearing altogether....circles are special that way, so when anyone sees a circle, you can't help but think of infinity right away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 13:14:28 GMT -5
I don't see how that follows though. The white space is only necessary to define the limitations of the black dot. No determination is necessary on whether the white space is infinite or not. No conjecture is necessary as to whether the white space has a boundary or not. All that is important in the example is that the black dot depends on contrast with something else. No comment is necessary on what is outside of the background, if anything. With this logic it's perfectly consistent that white space and black dot could be separate in the strongest ontological sense. You're basically saying that it's consistent that there is a finite white space, just hanging in existence all on its own. Then why not say the same of the black dot? And why not say the same of both the black dot and the white space? I don't see myself basically saying that. That could be a conclusion. It could also be a conclusion that the whitespace is infinite. Personally, I just leave it as an unknown. It is not necessary to conclude one way or the other. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 13:15:45 GMT -5
And where can I get the Zizek-for-dummies for absolute not kidding boneheads? |
|
