|
Post by enigma on Feb 2, 2015 16:38:04 GMT -5
Context is not the same as a belief system, and contexts are not, themselves, taken to be true or false. Remind me to explain context to you sometime. Of course the ideas themselves are not true. That's the whole idea of a pointer to the non-conceptual. That's why it's called a pointer and not a conceptual truth. Nonduality is not paradoxically pointing at all. It's very clearly saying, don't look at the finger, look at the moon. I fully agree that a context is not the same as a belief system, not sure how you got that from what I said. A particular context taken to be true could perhaps be said to be a belief system. From the point of view of the one with the belief system, it seems highly unlikely to me that they would regard their system as a context though, they are more likely to speak of 'beliefs' or 'truths'.
As a body of ideas, non-duality is paradoxical, because it is a set of ideas that point away from themselves. I wouldn't say the ideas are either true or false necessarily, though in the non-dual context of 'Truth', we might say that all ideas are false, and that would obviously (paradoxically) include non-dual ideas. Contexts are not true or false. They're contexts.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 2, 2015 16:39:59 GMT -5
Remind me to explain context to you sometime. Procrastinator! Well, at least I;m not being accused of dodging the issue....yet.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 2, 2015 17:18:25 GMT -5
I fully agree that a context is not the same as a belief system, not sure how you got that from what I said. A particular context taken to be true could perhaps be said to be a belief system. From the point of view of the one with the belief system, it seems highly unlikely to me that they would regard their system as a context though, they are more likely to speak of 'beliefs' or 'truths'.
As a body of ideas, non-duality is paradoxical, because it is a set of ideas that point away from themselves. I wouldn't say the ideas are either true or false necessarily, though in the non-dual context of 'Truth', we might say that all ideas are false, and that would obviously (paradoxically) include non-dual ideas. Contexts are not true or false. They're contexts. I know. That's why I said that those with a belief system are unlikely to think of their ideas AS a context. It's also why recognizing the non-dual body of ideas as a context is useful, as it is then hard to take those ideas as true. To give you an example...in the non-dual context, it is said that oneness is the case and consciousness is prior. In a scientific context, that would not yet be accepted as true. I resonate with the non-dual context, but I don't 'take' it or 'hold' it as true. To me, it is just another context. Another bunch of ideas. Though to be clear, even if the science context proved oneness to be true and consciousness to be prior, I wouldn't take it or hold it to be true either. I can look and see something to be true, I can experience something directly to be true, I can realize something to be true, but that still doesn't make it necessarily true. At most, it's true within this individual consciousness. Absolute truths, if there are such things, are outside of our capacity to know.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 2, 2015 17:28:00 GMT -5
Context is not the same as a belief system, and contexts are not, themselves, taken to be true or false. Remind me to explain context to you sometime. Of course the ideas themselves are not true. That's the whole idea of a pointer to the non-conceptual. That's why it's called a pointer and not a conceptual truth. Nonduality is not paradoxically pointing at all. It's very clearly saying, don't look at the finger, look at the moon. The very notion that the pointers are pointing in a particular direction or at something is a literalization of what's stated at the outset to be a necessarily indirect metaphor. The TMT goes "well, a pointer is an idea and these pointers point away/beyond/prior-to ideas". The fact that abstracting about the process and the structure is completely at odds with what's meant by "non-conceptual" is just completely ignored. Right, the pointers are pointing toward a realization, and that's where these chats always seem to hit a brick wall. The necessity of having to flail with the language in the pointing itself is bad enough, but then we have to logically analyse and dissect the language as well as what's being pointed to.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 2, 2015 20:10:57 GMT -5
Contexts are not true or false. They're contexts. I know. That's why I said that those with a belief system are unlikely to think of their ideas AS a context. It's also why recognizing the non-dual body of ideas as a context is useful, as it is then hard to take those ideas as true. To give you an example...in the non-dual context, it is said that oneness is the case and consciousness is prior. In a scientific context, that would not yet be accepted as true. I resonate with the non-dual context, but I don't 'take' it or 'hold' it as true. To me, it is just another context. Another bunch of ideas. Though to be clear, even if the science context proved oneness to be true and consciousness to be prior, I wouldn't take it or hold it to be true either. I can look and see something to be true, I can experience something directly to be true, I can realize something to be true, but that still doesn't make it necessarily true. At most, it's true within this individual consciousness. Absolute truths, if there are such things, are outside of our capacity to know. Where exactly is that? .....and, I might add, where exactly are YOU? <ahem> Where is all this carrying on happening?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 2, 2015 20:25:29 GMT -5
I know. That's why I said that those with a belief system are unlikely to think of their ideas AS a context. It's also why recognizing the non-dual body of ideas as a context is useful, as it is then hard to take those ideas as true. To give you an example...in the non-dual context, it is said that oneness is the case and consciousness is prior. In a scientific context, that would not yet be accepted as true. I resonate with the non-dual context, but I don't 'take' it or 'hold' it as true. To me, it is just another context. Another bunch of ideas. Though to be clear, even if the science context proved oneness to be true and consciousness to be prior, I wouldn't take it or hold it to be true either. I can look and see something to be true, I can experience something directly to be true, I can realize something to be true, but that still doesn't make it necessarily true. At most, it's true within this individual consciousness. Absolute truths, if there are such things, are outside of our capacity to know. Where exactly is that? .....and, I might add, where exactly are YOU? <ahem> Where is all this carrying on happening? What is outside of the individual consciousness or individual perspective is unknown. It doesn't matter where 'you' are in this instance, what matters is where the field of knowing begins and ends.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 2, 2015 21:21:17 GMT -5
Where exactly is that? .....and, I might add, where exactly are YOU? <ahem> Where is all this carrying on happening? What is outside of the individual consciousness or individual perspective is unknown. It doesn't matter where 'you' are in this instance, what matters is where the field of knowing begins and ends. Good. Now, just keep backing up until that indvidual consciousness/perspective/field of knowing is out front. The latter is just you doing the turtle shuffle out in the field.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 2, 2015 21:26:58 GMT -5
What is outside of the individual consciousness or individual perspective is unknown. It doesn't matter where 'you' are in this instance, what matters is where the field of knowing begins and ends. Good. Now, just keep backing up until that indvidual consciousness/perspective/field of knowing is out front. The latter is just you doing the turtle shuffle out in the field. The backing up is a trick happening in the individual consciousness. You cannot actually put it in front of you, you can only create the illusion or sense that it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2015 21:39:22 GMT -5
Where exactly is that? .....and, I might add, where exactly are YOU? <ahem> Where is all this carrying on happening? What is outside of the individual consciousness or individual perspective is unknown. It doesn't matter where 'you' are in this instance, what matters is where the field of knowing begins and ends. Hi andrew, so you believe you are the individual conciousness only, and not the ultimate consciousness in which the individual consciousness appears?
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 2, 2015 21:45:19 GMT -5
Good. Now, just keep backing up until that indvidual consciousness/perspective/field of knowing is out front. The latter is just you doing the turtle shuffle out in the field. The backing up is a trick happening in the individual consciousness. You cannot actually put it in front of you, you can only create the illusion or sense that it is. No one is tricking anyone here, except what you think you are tricking itself. Putting it out front is something your mind is saying has to be done. You're already standing in the river, dreaming up contexts and looking for angles in an argument going on in those contexts. Notice that? Peace.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 3, 2015 4:43:42 GMT -5
The backing up is a trick happening in the individual consciousness. You cannot actually put it in front of you, you can only create the illusion or sense that it is. No one is tricking anyone here, except what you think you are tricking itself. Putting it out front is something your mind is saying has to be done. You're already standing in the river, dreaming up contexts and looking for angles in an argument going on in those contexts. Notice that? Peace. You suggested to 'put it out front', it wasn't something my mind is saying has to be done. I could possibly agree that it is a good meditation thing to do, but there is a trickery within it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 3, 2015 4:55:15 GMT -5
What is outside of the individual consciousness or individual perspective is unknown. It doesn't matter where 'you' are in this instance, what matters is where the field of knowing begins and ends. Hi andrew, so you believe you are the individual conciousness only, and not the ultimate consciousness in which the individual consciousness appears? Hi source, no I wouldn't say that exactly. I resonate with the idea of an ultimate consciousness that I am, but this resonation happens within the individual consciousness. It is possible to directly experience ourselves as 'ultimate consciousness', but this too is still happening within the individual consciousness i.e. we cannot step outside the individual consciousness to discover 'the truth' of whether there actually is universal consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 3, 2015 6:14:00 GMT -5
The very notion that the pointers are pointing in a particular direction or at something is a literalization of what's stated at the outset to be a necessarily indirect metaphor. The TMT goes "well, a pointer is an idea and these pointers point away/beyond/prior-to ideas". The fact that abstracting about the process and the structure is completely at odds with what's meant by "non-conceptual" is just completely ignored. Right, the pointers are pointing toward a realization, and that's where these chats always seem to hit a brick wall. The necessity of having to flail with the language in the pointing itself is bad enough, but then we have to logically analyse and dissect the language as well as what's being pointed to. Here's the problem, many people have the same realization/experience you 'point' to, you just don't like it if they don't agree with your interpretation of that realization/experience.. logic/analysis/clarity/understanding, the totality of the individual's capacity for integrating with the actuality is process you fear, it exposes the illusions you peddle.. so you try to demonize it as an obstacle to understanding..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 3, 2015 6:17:05 GMT -5
What is outside of the individual consciousness or individual perspective is unknown. It doesn't matter where 'you' are in this instance, what matters is where the field of knowing begins and ends. Hi andrew, so you believe you are the individual conciousness only, and not the ultimate consciousness in which the individual consciousness appears? We are both, simultaneously.. where we place our attention reveals the experience we are having, part, whole, and/or both..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 3, 2015 7:22:16 GMT -5
The very notion that the pointers are pointing in a particular direction or at something is a literalization of what's stated at the outset to be a necessarily indirect metaphor. The TMT goes "well, a pointer is an idea and these pointers point away/beyond/prior-to ideas". The fact that abstracting about the process and the structure is completely at odds with what's meant by "non-conceptual" is just completely ignored. Right, the pointers are pointing toward a realization, and that's where these chats always seem to hit a brick wall. The necessity of having to flail with the language in the pointing itself is bad enough, but then we have to logically analyse and dissect the language as well as what's being pointed to. The dynamic seems to be that it's pretty obvious when overthinking about a particular pointer happens, so the next best thing is to resort to one level of abstraction away from the dialog. The result is the same either way: hyperminded noncents conclusions, and even though the dialog is clearly not only entered into willingly but even precipitated by the hyperminding, next October there will be a new mob shouting out their outrage about the bullying, circular discussions where evil frogs have dug into rigid mental positions about existential truth.
|
|