|
Post by laughter on Sept 5, 2014 7:01:41 GMT -5
It's not the same at all, No? a firm, unmitigated belief in self direction, volition and independence wouldn't also have a 'sense' component of feeling 'apart from' all else? Not what I've said."Both" is simply a means of trying to describe the experience of manyness and Oneness, happening simultaneously..the seamless experience of individuation AND One..with no divide between them. "Manyness" are the "parts".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 5, 2014 7:04:50 GMT -5
Being in control is an experience, and it would seem that part and parcel of your own experience of "being in control" lies in your belief that you have pinned down pat answers to all existential questions. I have no such experience of being in control. As for existential questions, I've said repeatedly that the questions are misconceived. a strawman zombie army?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 5, 2014 7:06:14 GMT -5
So you disclaim any interest in truth or falsity but you are interested in "misleading". Do you understand what "misleading" means? Maybe not, since she doesn't understand what 'separate' means.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 5, 2014 7:07:53 GMT -5
... in between sewing his existential answer pouch shut that is. Oh, I don't think he's in any condition to be handling needles. No! You're wrong! Sweaty frogs are the best at getting needles out of strawman haystacks!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 5, 2014 10:42:38 GMT -5
Oh, I don't think he's in any condition to be handling needles. No! You're wrong! Sweaty frogs are the best at getting needles out of strawman haystacks! OMG, it really IS all connected!
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 5, 2014 11:06:51 GMT -5
No? a firm, unmitigated belief in self direction, volition and independence wouldn't also have a 'sense' component of feeling 'apart from' all else? Not what I've said."Both" is simply a means of trying to describe the experience of manyness and Oneness, happening simultaneously..the seamless experience of individuation AND One..with no divide between them. "Manyness" are the "parts". Yes, but I don't use the terms 'interdependence and connected in various ways.' Not that's there's necessarily anything wrong with any that...it's just not how I'd state things..it wouldn't be a wholly accurate portrayal of my perspective.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 5, 2014 11:16:12 GMT -5
"Manyness" are the "parts". Yes, but I don't use the terms 'interdependence and connected in various ways.' Yes, that's true. Not that's there's necessarily anything wrong with any that...it's just not how I'd state things..it wouldn't be a wholly accurate portrayal of my perspective. Is the whole the sum of the parts?
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 5, 2014 11:34:17 GMT -5
Yes, but I don't use the terms 'interdependence and connected in various ways.' Yes, that's true. Not that's there's necessarily anything wrong with any that...it's just not how I'd state things..it wouldn't be a wholly accurate portrayal of my perspective. Is the whole the sum of the parts? Again, the term 'whole' is not really my thing at present....nor are the terms 'sum of parts.' So I don't have much to say about that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 5, 2014 11:46:13 GMT -5
Yes, that's true. Is the whole the sum of the parts? Again, the term 'whole' is not really my thing at present....nor are the terms 'sum of parts.' So I don't have much to say about that. Now you're word lawyering, and I certainly understand that in this case. You want to deny a belief that E' ascribed to you. So replace the word "whole" with "One" then (the way that you used it). Is the "One" the sum of the "many"? ( your words this time). That is the expression you used in response to a reference to "whole" and "parts".
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 5, 2014 12:02:22 GMT -5
That is the expression you used in response to a reference to "whole" and "parts". Quote, please?...in the one you link to I'm speaking of 'the experience of' Oneness and Manyness, simultaneously, being behind the descriptor of 'both.' I don't speak of "The" One, that just doesn't resonate, nor does the idea of 'summation.' To me, Oneness or One, is not a thing that could be a 'sum' of anything else..it's experiencial...best way to describe, One is the 'fabric' of isness...the well-spring of all else that can be perceived....Oneness pervades... (IS) everything, without boundary.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 5, 2014 12:14:58 GMT -5
That is the expression you used in response to a reference to "whole" and "parts". Quote, please? The notion of being an autonomous separate part that is connected to the whole is pure ego fantasy. Ego fantasies get experienced all the time, but it doesn't make them true. I don't see how the notion of 'true' (or false for that matter,) applies to experience as we're speaking of it here. The experiential, simply is what it is. There is no arguing with it, unless it's problematic. To apply labels of true vs. false is to add an unnecessary layer. TMT. "Both" is simply a means of trying to describe the experience of manyness and Oneness, happening simultaneously..the seamless experience of individuation AND One..with no divide between them. Is it true that 'both' is actually the case? I sure have no need to go that far, but it is what's experienced here, and there is a certain validity within that. Can one individuated experience be more (or less) true than another individuated experience? I dunno. If loving life is what's happening, who or what would rise up to quibble about whether or not what's being experienced is 'true'?
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 5, 2014 12:50:14 GMT -5
I don't see how the notion of 'true' (or false for that matter,) applies to experience as we're speaking of it here. The experiential, simply is what it is. There is no arguing with it, unless it's problematic. To apply labels of true vs. false is to add an unnecessary layer. TMT. "Both" is simply a means of trying to describe the experience of manyness and Oneness, happening simultaneously..the seamless experience of individuation AND One..with no divide between them. Is it true that 'both' is actually the case? I sure have no need to go that far, but it is what's experienced here, and there is a certain validity within that. Can one individuated experience be more (or less) true than another individuated experience? I dunno. If loving life is what's happening, who or what would rise up to quibble about whether or not what's being experienced is 'true'? As I said in my post above in edit: I don't speak of "The" One, that just doesn't resonate, nor does the idea of 'summation.' To me, Oneness or One, is not a thing that could be a 'sum' of anything else..it's experiencial...best way to describe, One is the 'fabric' of isness...the well-spring of all else that can be perceived....Oneness pervades... (IS) everything, without boundary. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3749/hey-sharon-hope-hear-again?page=15#ixzz3CSsAi4hL
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 5, 2014 13:08:08 GMT -5
That is the expression you used in response to a reference to "whole" and "parts". Quote, please?...in the one you link to I'm speaking of 'the experience of' Oneness and Manyness, simultaneously, being behind the descriptor of 'both.' I don't speak of "The" One, that just doesn't resonate, nor does the idea of 'summation.' To me, Oneness or One, is not a thing that could be a 'sum' of anything else..it's experiencial...best way to describe, One is the 'fabric' of isness...the well-spring of all else that can be perceived....Oneness pervades... (IS) everything, without boundary. This gets us closer to the difference between the 'both separate and one' philosophy that comes up regularly here, and what is being pointed to as oneness. Oneness is not experiential, and the belief that it is may lead one to accept the experience of separation as equally valid, hencely the 'both one and many' belief since the experience of both is being created. While there may be agreement that oneness is without boundaries, apparently it's not recognized that boundaries are at the core of any and all experience. Mind forms experience by creating boundaries (this and not that) and proceeding to define and label these movements of mind and call it an experience. If one has had an experience of oneness, one has bounded the boundless. Oneness is a realization, which may come about for most as a realization of the falsity of those boundaries, which is to say the falsity of separation. 'Both many and one' presents a contradiction, and the seeker grows accustomed to accepting contradictions, but they are only apparent. When there is clarity there is no contradiction, so all contradictions should be held lightly until clarity resolves the issue. Both many and one is false, bad, evil, wrong and any other spiritually incorrect term that fits here.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 5, 2014 13:29:22 GMT -5
That is the expression you used in response to a reference to "whole" and "parts". Quote, please?...in the one you link to I'm speaking of 'the experience of' Oneness and Manyness, simultaneously, being behind the descriptor of 'both.' I don't speak of "The" One, that just doesn't resonate, nor does the idea of 'summation.' To me, Oneness or One, is not a thing that could be a 'sum' of anything else..it's experiencial...best way to describe, One is the 'fabric' of isness...the well-spring of all else that can be perceived....Oneness pervades... (IS) everything, without boundary. Ok, so if the relationship between "Oneness" and "manyness" isn't a summation, what, if any is that relationship? "Both" refers to two mental constructs: "Oneness" and "manyness". You denied the belief E' ascribed to you based on having never expressed the relationship that the many of the "Manyness" (what E' calls the "parts") is interconnected to form the "One" of the "Oneness" (again, your words). And I agreed with the fact that you've never expressed that idea directly with those words. Is there any other idea that does apply for you though? For example, do you think that human beings are intimately interconnected with and feel themselves to be a part of something greater than themselves?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 5, 2014 13:32:27 GMT -5
To me, Oneness or One, is not a thing that could be a 'sum' of anything else..it's experiencial...best way to describe, One is the 'fabric' of isness...the well-spring of all else that can be perceived....Oneness pervades... (IS) everything, without boundary. That's an expression of what I take the term "no separation" to refer to. "To say it IS everything", is a manner of pointing, and I'm not taking that literally in what you've written, but instead read it the same as when ZD writes "there is only THIS".
|
|