|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2015 15:16:41 GMT -5
From my perspective, you're reading more into it than I am. I'm just saying what's being pointed to is not a model. Yea but your pointer makes no sense without a model. Can't escape it when communicating. I know. I'm just saying what's being pointed to is not a model.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2015 15:20:05 GMT -5
I didn't mean to imply you are. I meant to imply you have an agenda. No, every time I open my mouth, Andrew says I'm talking about a model, because he believes everybody is talking about a model. He would say you are talking about a model. I've made myself clear with 'nothing is ultimately true' and 'everything collapses into a little greasy spot' and 'the questions don't get answered but rather are seen to be misconceived', and about a dozen other things I say regularly. Ask yourself why you would question my use of the term 'answers' now, which was really Steve's term, and ignore everything else I've said for years. I understand that pointers point prior to models (hence why they are called 'pointers'). Otherwise, yes, when we talk we are revealing our model (I wouldn't say 'talking about a model' per se) So you think the one pointing prior to models has his own model?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2015 15:21:36 GMT -5
I didn't mean to imply you are. I meant to imply you have an agenda. No, every time I open my mouth, Andrew says I'm talking about a model, because he believes everybody is talking about a model. He would say you are talking about a model. I've made myself clear with 'nothing is ultimately true' and 'everything collapses into a little greasy spot' and 'the questions don't get answered but rather are seen to be misconceived', and about a dozen other things I say regularly. Ask yourself why you would question my use of the term 'answers' now, which was really Steve's term, and ignore everything else I've said for years. Well said, that's your model. That's just silly.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2015 15:22:24 GMT -5
I agree with this. If you speak rationally, and value logic in communication, you're already dealing with models. Consciousness or awareness being prior to all else. I've got no problem with models. Pointers sit within the context of models. If you don't understand the model, you won't know which way the pointer is pointing. For example nonduality requires an understanding of duality. You've got to know where that is to look away from it. And duality ain't an elementary concept. When we put stuff in the * * or _____ or this.is.it or still mind or This....none of that stuff makes sense without a context of understanding, a model. Bingo. A model is shorthand. Shorthand for what?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 18, 2015 15:23:35 GMT -5
I agree with this. If you speak rationally, and value logic in communication, you're already dealing with models. Consciousness or awareness being prior to all else. I've got no problem with models. Pointers sit within the context of models. If you don't understand the model, you won't know which way the pointer is pointing. For example nonduality requires an understanding of duality. You've got to know where that is to look away from it. And duality ain't an elementary concept. When we put stuff in the * * or _____ or this.is.it or still mind or This....none of that stuff makes sense without a context of understanding, a model. I agree. What I don't agree with is that the one pointing has a model, or is pointing to a model. if you agree that pointers sit within the context of models then why does the individual pointing not have a model? I am requesting clarification of your model on this point
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2015 15:25:02 GMT -5
For the 23 gazillionth time, illusion is only illusion if you believe it to be other than it is. (ZD and I say the same things) This is why I say frogster that we only perceive things as we do .. We see it how it is .. from our point of perception .. Black is white if that is how one see's it . Will a mirage quench your thirst if you see it as an oasis? Are you seeing it how it is?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 18, 2015 15:25:31 GMT -5
But, parsing words is your expertise, you just dodge issues that reveal the inconsistencies of your beliefs, you get mad and end the discussion rather than admit an inconsistency.. 1) Parsing words is usually a word game designed to make another wrong by analyzing the map and ignoring the territory. 2) I like to think I never dodge issues, as that would be inconsistent with an interest in WIBIGO. However, I have an insanity threshold beyond which I will not continue. 3) I'm not aware of any inconsistencies, though I do see how others form them by analyzing maps and parsing words. 4) Nobody here has the power to make me mad. You give yourself too much credit. The complaints from some here regarding the poor quality of discussion have merit, and so for some time now, and increasingly, I've been responding to the most insane comments by not responding. Don't be misled into thinking that means you win. It just means you're too insane to have a sane discussion with. Claiming insanity of the the understandings you don't agree with is another dodge.. this is not a game anyone wins, that is your issue, and when you don't think you're 'winning' you take your toys/beliefs and stomp off..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 18, 2015 15:25:50 GMT -5
I understand that pointers point prior to models (hence why they are called 'pointers'). Otherwise, yes, when we talk we are revealing our model (I wouldn't say 'talking about a model' per se) So you think the one pointing prior to models has his own model? Of course! You couldn't point prior to models without a model of there being models that can be pointed away from!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2015 15:26:49 GMT -5
Yes, and I don't remember asking you to do it again. It is also what were before you were born, what you are now, and what you will always be. Do you think you can be other than the essence that you are? Yes...it...is...However...I...don't...understand...where...the...problem...would...be...for... me...in...being...born...'with'...essence... Yes......I know. The word logic is not in your vocabulary. This is what it's like to post with E. E says yes. I say no. E says stop. And I say go, go, go.......o....h.........o..h..oh, oh.... I say good-bye. And E says hello.....hel-lo, hel-lo..........I say goodbye and E says hello........... ............. or.........I say yes. E says no. I say stop. And E says go, go, go .........on...h......o,,h,...oh, ohhh...... E says good-bye I say hello......... I don't know why E says good-bye and I say hello........ ............................ You are the one who said there is no essence (no middle layer)........ What the heck are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 18, 2015 15:27:37 GMT -5
I agree with this. If you speak rationally, and value logic in communication, you're already dealing with models. Consciousness or awareness being prior to all else. I've got no problem with models. Pointers sit within the context of models. If you don't understand the model, you won't know which way the pointer is pointing. For example nonduality requires an understanding of duality. You've got to know where that is to look away from it. And duality ain't an elementary concept. When we put stuff in the * * or _____ or this.is.it or still mind or This....none of that stuff makes sense without a context of understanding, a model. I agree. What I don't agree with is that the one pointing has a model, or is pointing to a model. You can only 'point' with a model, the model of your understanding..
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jan 18, 2015 15:27:59 GMT -5
So you think the one pointing prior to models has his own model? Of course! You couldn't point prior to models without a model of there being models that can be pointed away from!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 18, 2015 15:29:55 GMT -5
Yes......I know. The word logic is not in your vocabulary. This is what it's like to post with E. E says yes. I say no. E says stop. And I say go, go, go.......o....h.........o..h..oh, oh.... I say good-bye. And E says hello.....hel-lo, hel-lo..........I say goodbye and E says hello........... ............. or.........I say yes. E says no. I say stop. And E says go, go, go .........on...h......o,,h,...oh, ohhh...... E says good-bye I say hello......... I don't know why E says good-bye and I say hello........ ............................ You are the one who said there is no essence (no middle layer)........ What the heck are you talking about? sounds like The Beatles to me....
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 18, 2015 15:30:20 GMT -5
This is why I say frogster that we only perceive things as we do .. We see it how it is .. from our point of perception .. Black is white if that is how one see's it . Will a mirage quench your thirst if you see it as an oasis? Are you seeing it how it is? The mirage is incomplete information, further experience reconciles the ambiguities in the incomplete information..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 18, 2015 15:30:51 GMT -5
I agree. What I don't agree with is that the one pointing has a model, or is pointing to a model. You can only 'point' with a model, the model of your understanding.. exactly.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 18, 2015 15:32:22 GMT -5
This is why I say frogster that we only perceive things as we do .. We see it how it is .. from our point of perception .. Black is white if that is how one see's it . Will a mirage quench your thirst if you see it as an oasis? Are you seeing it how it is? from our individual point of perception one is seeing it how it is in relation to our point of perception . What is real is in relation to how one perceives self . I am real everything else is an illusion , I am awake to the story or the dream . Everything is relative to the experiencer or the observer of such . Your dream is my reality, my reality is your story . Who is to say how it is, other than the individual that see's it how it is .
|
|